Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL

Lords amendments agreed to:

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (NO. 2) BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read a Third time on Thursday 13 April.

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (HULL) BILL (By Order)

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)

WENTWORTH ESTATE BILL (By Order)

BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL (By Order)

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 13 April.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Unleaded Petrol

Mr. Gregory: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the anticipated excise revenue on unleaded petrol for the current year; and if he will make a statement.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): The excise duty revenue on unleaded petrol will be about £665 million in 1989–90.

Mr. Gregory: Now that the Chancellor has increased the tax differential between leaded and unleaded petrol to 14p per gallon, which I understand is the second highest in the EC after Denmark, does my hon. Friend agree that petroleum companies should extend the availability of unleaded petrol so that more motorists can do the green thing and support the Government?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct when he says that our differential is now greater than that of any country apart from Denmark. Because of the additional changes that we made in the Budget affecting the price of two-star petrol, an even greater number of filling stations are transferring pumps and storage capacity from two-star and three-star petrol to unleaded petrol, and the response so far is encouraging.

Mr. Frank Field: Why have the Government found it necessary to rig the free market in favour of unleaded petrol? Would it be right for voters to draw from that a conclusion that on the growing agenda of environmental issues an untrammelled free market does not serve the best long-term interests of mankind?

Mr. Lilley: We have never believed that environmental considerations are best met by an untrammelled free market. We have always been prepared to introduce incentives, as we have done here, to encourage a better environment. By and large the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget have been warmly welcomed by all those concerned about the environment.

Manufacturing Investment

Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest information on the investment intentions of British manufacturing industry.

Mr. Irvine: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest information on the investment intentions of British manufacturing industry.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): The Financial Statement and Budget Report forecast is for business investment to rise by 8 per cent. in 1989.

Mr. Shepherd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that it shows that under the Government manufacturing investment is growing satisfactorily? Will he confirm that in terms of GDP, total


manufacturing investment is now higher than it was at any time during the last Labour Administration? Can he say whether this growth is fully nationwide?

Mr. Lawson: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The investment boom that has been continuing now in this country for several years and is scheduled to continue in this current year is nationwide. It is perfectly true that total investment is a higher proportion of GDP than in any year under the last Labour Government and indeed business investment last year—1988—was the highest proportion of GDP since records began. As for manufacturing investment, the latest Department of Trade and Industry investment intention survey suggested that manufacturing investment will rise by 11 per cent. in 1989—far and away the highest figure ever.

Mr. Irvine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this continuing high level of investment is the best possible indication of confidence by industry and commerce in the Government's financial policy and in the fundamental strength of the British economy?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. It has long been the case in this country that our two main problems—they have been identified in the past by many outside commentators—were a poor rate of growth of investment and a poor rate of growth of productivity. Now we have the highest rate of growth of investment in the 1980s of any major country in Europe. Indeed, over the past seven years total investment has grown more than twice as fast as consumption and we also have, of course, throughout the 1980s an unprecedented growth in productivity and so the fundamentals of the British economy are improving in the way that we always desired, but never before achieved.

Mrs. Mahon: If the Chancellor believes that the economy is improving so much, why were 20,000 jobs lost in the textile, clothing and hosiery industry last year? Will he give us his forecast for the future of textiles over the next 12 months?

Mr. Lawson: Of course I am well aware of the difficulties of the textile and hosiery industry, not least because I represent an east midlands constituency. But of course there are some industries that shed jobs and there are others that put them on. What we have seen is overall—taking the economy as a whole—unemployment falling further and faster than in any other country, and than in any other period. Indeed we now have a level of unemployment in this country well below the European Community average.

Mr. Grocott: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirm that, according to the Government's press release of 15 March, manufacturing investment in 1988 was £10,990 million while manufacturing investment in 1979—nearly 10 long years ago—was £11,137 million? Is that not a pathetic record?

Mr. Lawson: I do not think that it is a pathetic record. As I pointed out, total business investment is at a higher proportion of GDP than it has ever been since records were first collected. What was happening in manufacturing industry under the Labour Government was that there was so much—[Interruption.] I am answering the hon. Member's question. He asked me a question and I am now answering it. What was happening then was that as a result of restrictive practices, inefficiency and, in many cases,

poor management the return on the capital then was very very poor. It was necessary to increase investment substantially in manufacturing, it was necessary to get more output—which is what we have got—more output and better and more efficient use of existing capital. Now the forecast is for manufacturing investment to rise, as it is set to do in the current year, to a record level and the quality of investment is far higher as is shown by the return on manufacturing investment. So the hon. Member does not know the first thing that he is talking about.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continuing buoyancy of investment in this country is one of the most favourable and promising factors for the prospects of non-inflationary growth? It is vital that nothing should be done to damage that investment confidence. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that his very cautious Budget did a great deal to reassure industry and shore up that very important confidence?

Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the Budget and of course he is quite right to emphasise the importance of confidence. Confidence in this country is very high and this is shown, of course, most recently by the CBI survey of investment intentions. It really is deplorable, the way in which the Labour party can do nothing but try to run Britain down and to deny the facts of investment success and of investment boom that are all around us.

Balance of Payments

Dr. Godman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his Budget forecast for the balance of payments in 1989 and 1990.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Major): None, Sir.

Dr. Godman: After learning last week's figures, does the Chief Secretary's right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, now predict that the balance of payments deficit for this year will rise or fall?

Mr. Major: I see no reason to change the estimate that my right hon. Friend gave some time ago.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Bearing in mind the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to the last questions, does my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary accept that if interest rates were lower, investment in this country would be higher and that our balance of payments would improve? Does my right hon. Friend agree that interest rates have affected, and will affect, investment, and that investment will have a direct impact on our balance of payments?

Mr. Major: What would certainly have a very direct effect on investment would be a failure to take the action necessary to bring down inflation—and that is the purpose of the current short-term interest rate policy. One of the attractive aspects of investment over the past year or two is that so much of it has been made out of retained profits, whereas in previous years and under previous Governments, profits were not there to provide for investment.

Mr. John Smith: Has the Chief Secretary seen the international monetary fund's prediction that the balance of payments deficit for 1989 will reach a record £17 billion? As the Chancellor got it so badly wrong this year, why should we believe his prediction this year as opposed to that of the IMF?

Mr. Major: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that the IMF was equally inaccurate last year, as were most other forecasters. The right hon. and learned Gentleman neglects to mention that the IMF report also described the Government's policies as being entirely appropriate, and it confirmed that our strong fiscal policies support monetary policy and strengthen confidence.

Mr. Beith: Would the Government regard it as an achievement if, instead of being £10 billion out with their balance of payments forecast, this year they were only about £6 billion out? Will the Chief Secretary explain why he believes that exports will rise more than twice as fast as imports in order to make his promise come true?

Mr. Major: There is no doubt that in recent years exports have been performing extremely well. The reasons why we believe that export performance will continue include the degree of investment and the improved supply-side performance.

Mr. Sumberg: As we listen to the views of Opposition Members and hear their policies unfolded, is it not becoming clearer day by day that the Labour party remains the party of high taxation and of higher spending than we can afford, and that it wants to return to the days of public borrowing and public debt?

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend describes the situation with precise accuracy.

Profit-related Pay

Dr. Reid: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the work force is currently participating in profit-related pay schemes as defined by the Inland Revenue.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): Take-up of profit-related pay has been encouraging. So far, about 121,000 employees are participating in PRP schemes. In his Budget statement, my right hon. Friend announced several improvements and simplifications to the tax relief for PRP. We expect those further to encourage take-up.

Dr. Reid: Why does the Minister not answer my question and say what percentage of workers are involved in such schemes? I have worked out that a total of 121,000 participating employees out of a work force of 28 million represents less than 0·5 per cent. Is that not an indication of the scheme's dismal failure? Why does not the Chancellor admit that the abolition of the 5 per cent. rule is an indication of yet another failure of one of his pet schemes? Why does he persist in throwing good money after bad, when there is no evidence that it has any beneficial effect on the economy? Why does he not get down to tackling the real problems facing the British economy?

Mr. Lamont: I did not give the precise figure for which the hon. Gentleman asked because he is such a brilliant

mathematician that I thought that he could work it out. When he gave his figure, he worked it out wrongly. As one of my hon. Friends said, it is over ½per cent. but under 1 per cent.—[Interruption] This is just over a year after the scheme was introduced. The take-up is ahead of that of the all-employee share scheme when it was a year old. This scheme is being taken up more quickly than other schemes when they were introduced. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman wants to make out that the scheme is a failure. I should have thought that any Socialist Opposition might be interested in the idea of profit-related pay, which gives people a stake in their company and helps to make pay bargaining more flexible. Any sensible person should want to encourage that.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend note that this Budget has done an immense amount to boost the participation of workers in the success of the companies for which they work? Will he urge companies and trade unions to take up such schemes more often? It is not the Government's fault that the take-up rate has been slow, it is the fault of those in industry who have not realised that, in the long term, workers participating in the success of their companies, and not dependency on the annual wage round, is the way forward.

Mr. Lamont: I know of my hon. Friend's great interest, particularly in employee share ownership plans. Again, we have introduced some tax reliefs, and we will certainly do everything we can to encourage employees and employers to take them up. I repeat the point that I made earlier. After 18 months, it is not surprising that only that proportion has taken up PRP. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Motherwell. North (Dr. Reid) said, the changes that were introduced in the Budget and the 5 per cent. rule will encourage more people. That is a good thing.

Interest Rates

Mr. Turner: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are interest rates in (a) Britain and (b) Japan.

Mr. Lilley: Three month market interest rates on 4 April were 13 per cent. in the United Kingdom, 9·8 per cent. in the United States of America, and 4·6 per cent. in Japan.

Mr. Turner: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has a reputation for straight talking. I do not think that we got straight talking in his answer to a question from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). May I try again? In terms of the widely differing interest rates, how on earth does he expect British business to seek to reduce the balance of payments deficit? Will he give us a straight answer? He said that interest rates in Japan are 4·6 per cent., compared with 13 per cent. in this country.

Mr. Lilley: The level of profitability of British industry has been restored to levels which it has not seen for a long time, and it is so healthy that it is clear that British industry can compete.

Mr. Budgen: Is the Japanese economy a good example of what happens when Governments reduce interest rates too much? Is my hon. Friend aware that, when interest rates in Japan were reduced to their present low level at the beginning of 1987, the price of residential land was already


the highest in the world by a long way and was increasing by 9 per cent. per annum? It then started to increase by 27 per cent. The price of land and that increase is a major cause of the social and political turmoil that Japan is going through at present.

Mr. Lilley: I am happy to say that my responsibilities do not extend to the Japanese economy. I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks will be noticed there and that his concern for their current difficulties will be greatly appreciated.

Mr. Radice: Has the Minister noticed that the Government urge a strong yen to reduce the Japanese surplus, whereas in Britain they urge a strong pound to reduce our deficit? Which is the right course of action?

Mr. Lilley: It is clear that, in an economy such as ours, devaluation would largely feed increased inflation and would affect the value of the pound in the hon. Gentleman's pocket. Therefore, we believe that the exchange rate should not be allowed to depreciate. The Group of Seven Ministers reaffirmed the desire of the Finance Ministers of the leading countries to seek continued stability of exchange rates.

Mr. Hanley: Does my hon. Friend agree that if levels of personal savings were as high in Britain as they are in Japan and if levels of personal borrowings were as low in Britain as they are in Japan, interest rates might be much more in parity?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend who, I am sure, does not share the view that I am responsible for the Japanese economy, makes a good point. We are anxious to see saving encouraged and borrowing discouraged, which is what higher interest rates achieve. I must point out that although personal savings have been low, there has been a good recovery in savings and investments by industrial companies.

Inflation

Mr. Buckley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many members of the European Economic Community have inflation rates lower than that in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lawson: On the basis of comparable figures, seven EEC member countries currently have lower inflation than the United Kingdom and four have higher inflation.

Mr. Buckley: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that the United Kingdom inflation rate of 7·8 per cent. is largely a consequence of Government policy in pushing up electricity, gas and transport prices and of the high mortgage rate, which is punishing people in this country?

Mr. Lawson: No, I do not agree with any of that and, indeed, the higher mortgage rates, which are a consequence of higher interest rates generally, are necessary to get inflation down because I do agree that inflation is currently too high. Indeed inflation, which during the whole of our period of office has averaged 1 per cent. above the European Community average, is currently 3 per cent. above the European Community average. However, to put that in perspective, it is worth

recalling that during the whole of the period of the Labour Government, our inflation rate was 6 per cent. above the European Community average.

Mr. Dykes: Is not the ominous truth now dawning that higher interest rates actually add to the rate of inflation, which in turn creates an additional spiral?

Mr. Lawson: No, Sir.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Chancellor confirm that after the rises in gas, electricity and water charges, in rents and rates, including the poll tax in Scotland, and even in television licences, prescriptions and the new eyesight charges, the petrol price rise is the ninth rise in one week? How many more price rises must we have on his road to zero inflation?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is extremely perceptive and he has noticed that he has just informed the House of the interesting fact that, until inflation is zero, prices tend to rise.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that despite all his great efforts in this respect, there will always be considerable difficulties for any Government in this country while we have the relentless annual wage awards in both the private and public sectors, irrespective of performance?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is certainly right that it is desirable that British industry should keep a tight control of its costs and that, of course, includes, most importantly, pay costs. Nevertheless, that is not the primary cause of inflation, although it does add to the difficulties for British industry in dealing with the current situation. But the remedy is in its own hands. But inflation is the responsibility of the Government and it is the responsibility of the Government to get inflation down by pursuing an adequately tight monetary policy and that is what we are doing. The Opposition, by their repeated calls, which we have heard again today, for lower interest rates are revealing themselves, once again, as the party of higher inflation.

Tax Relief

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer of tax relief in relation to (a) enterprise zones, (b) business expansion schemes and (c) personal equity plans.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The estimated costs of the business expansion scheme and personal equity plans are £100 million and £15 million respectively in 1988–89. The latest year for which estimates of the cost of the relief relating to enterprise zones are available is 1985–86, when the cost was about £60 million.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that what the Chancellor has done in making personal equity plans tax deductible to cover privatisation in the coming year is to admit that the privatisation of electricity and water cannot take place without creating a tax loophole? Will he tell us, therefore, what the cost of privatising electricity and water will be to the taxpayer, as the Government have again thought up a wonderfully socially progressive idea for getting the non-shareholding classes to subsidise the shareholding classes?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman seems terrified that the privatisation of water or electricity might be a success and, therefore, more difficult for the Labour party to reverse. The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating wildly. The purpose of the changes to personal equity plans that my right hon. Friend made in his Budget is to encourage wider share ownership. The point relating to new issues was one detail and the cost of that is extremely modest.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best form of tax relief is straight reductions in tax rates? As Opposition Members seem to have grasped that fact and, in their increasingly desperate scramble for office, are making their party more voter-friendly by following the lead that we have been giving for the past 10 years, can my right hon. Friend tease out of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) the bands at which the lower rates of tax that the Opposition propose would be payable?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Leader of the Opposition made a tantalising speech earlier this week when he attempted to explain the tax policies of the Labour party. However, as my hon. Friend has identified, he left out the absolutely crucial point and most of us are wondering where the beef was in that speech.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Financial Secretary accept that the business expansion scheme, especially now, when it is so overwhelmingly employed for the purposes of private rented property, has long ceased to be a genuine source of new equity for enterprise, and has become simply a principal means of tax avoidance for higher rate taxpayers? Is that not another example of what we have seen so often under this Government? For the great majority of taxpayers it is pay-as-you-earn, but for the privileged few it is pay-if-you-like.

Mr. Lamont: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The changes that we made to the business expansion scheme last year targeted it much more on small companies and, with the changes that have taken place in the equity and venture capital markets, I believe that that was the right change to make. The second change that we made was to target the business expansion scheme on the revival of the private rented sector. I am not at all embarrassed by the fact that £300 million to £400 million seems to have been invested in private rented accommodation because that is absolutely excellent.

Pensioners (Income)

Sir Trevor Skeet: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the change in the post-tax income of pensioners since 1979.

Mr. Major: The average post-tax incomes of pensioners increased by 23 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1986.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I welcome those figures and the fact that the Chancellor raised income support substantially in the Budget for the over-75s, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the plight of pensioners who are on only the single state pension and have no savings?

Mr. Major: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. These days it is misleading to assume that most pensioners rely solely on the state retirement pension. At present

about 50 per cent. of all pensioners also have an occupational pension and that proportion rises to about 70 per cent. of those who retired in the past five years. Those who do not have an occupational pension could either receive an earnings-related supplement to their state pension or be entitled to income support and housing benefit additions.

Mr. Shore: How much of the increase about which the Chief Secretary told us was due to reductions in income tax and how much was due to the secular increase in occupational pensions that has been taking place year after year?

Mr. Major: To give the right hon. Gentleman the precise figure I shall need to write to him.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Have not people who retired before the introduction of the state earnings-related pension scheme in 1978, without an occupational pension of their own, fared less well than the average? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend consider including in his welcome changes to the higher level of age allowance people of 70 and over to cater for all women who retired at 60 prior to 1978?

Mr. Major: The principal problem that my hon. Friend outlines has been dealt with in the package for poorer pensioners that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced some months ago. It comes into effect from October this year and will provide an extra £2·50 for single pensioners who qualify and £3·50 for couples.

Balance of Payments

Mr. John Garrett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the balance of payments deficit will begin to fall as a percentage of gross domestic product.

Mr. Galbraith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the balance of payments deficit will begin to fall as a percentage of gross domestic product.

Mr. Lawson: Probably this year.

Mr. Garrett: Does the Chancellor agree that the balance of payments deficit was 1·7 per cent. of GDP in 1979 and 4·4 per cent. of GDP in 1988? Does he further agree that we have become a country that imports capital goods and exports oil, and is that not characteristic of an underdeveloped economy?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on pretty well all counts. His figures for the balance of payments current account deficit in 1988—it was 3·2 per cent. of GDP, not the 4·4 per cent. It is 3·2 per cent. That, of course, is a high figure but it is worth bearing in mind that the United States has had a current account deficit averaging over 3 per cent. for the past five years.
As for the imports of capital goods, there the hon. Member is right. There has been a substantial increase in the imports of capital goods and that has been the counterpart of the massive investment boom which has been going on throughout British industry and which will stand us in very good stead in the future.

Mr. Galbraith: Has the Chancellor read the report of the Institute of National Economics which states that


Britain's deficit is in a class by itself and is likely to reach £44 billion by 1992? What will the Chancellor do to prevent than horrendous outcome?

Mr. Lawson: The statement by the organisation to which the hon. Member referred is wrong as, if the hon. Member would listen to what I said, the Americans have had a current account deficit of this order as a percentage of gross domestic product for the past five years—

Mr. John Smith: The right hon. Gentleman criticised them.

Mr. Lawson: —which I have not criticised. I am happy to answer questions from the Opposition Front Bench from a sedentary position since they have been put. I have criticised them for their budget deficit, not for their current account deficit. So it is certainly not in a class of its own, but it is obviously necessary that we get it down in due course and that is what we shall do.

Mr. Batiste: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the scepticism with which the statistics on which the balance of payments figures are calculated are treated in many quarters. Is he satisfied with the accuracy of those statistics? If not, what action will he take to improve them?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right; the statistics are almost certainly inaccurate, as is indicated by, for example, the fact that for 1988 there was in the balance of payments a balancing item of £15 billion, greater indeed than the recorded deficit—and a balancing item is just a polite name for errors and omissions. We are concerned to improve the quality of Government economic statistics, and that is why the measures were announced yesterday involving a substantial reorganisation and enlargement of the Central Statistical Office and a number of other measures which, over time, will lead, I believe, to an improvement in the quality of statistics.
Having said that, it is a balance that has to be drawn between the burdens on business—the burdens that are put on business through the collection of statistics—and getting the full amount of statistics; and also, now that the economy is a much more complex, more service-based economy, it is genuinely harder to get statistics of the quality that we had in the past. Clearly, we have got to do better, and the announcement yesterday is designed to do just that.

Sir Richard Body: Will my right hon. Friend explain how there can be both a balance and a deficit? Surely the balance of payments deficit on current account is matched exactly by a capital account surplus, which may well be to our advantage?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Part of the point that I was making was that if my hon. Friend looks at the officially recorded figures he will see that there is a substantial deficit on the current account in 1988 but equally there is a recorded capital outflow, which clearly cannot be the case. The two things must match and counteract. Of course, my hon. Friend is also right that the overseas savings which are coming to the United Kingdom to finance investment here—because they feel that this is a very good place to invest—are extremely welcome and will strengthen the British economy.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Since the high pound and the high level of interest rates are a disadvantage to the balance of

payments, are not the Chancellor's remarks quite unconvincing on how he expects to improve the balance of payments so long as these factors remain?

Mr. Lawson: I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, even though he has at one time been a Treasury Minister. What has been happening is that domestic demand in this country has been running at an unsustainably high level, and one of the things that will happen is that the rate of growth of domestic demand will slow down and, as it slows down, import growth will slow down. That is one of the mechanisms by which there will be an improvement in the current account.
What the right hon. Gentleman is proposing, however, which is lower interest rates and a lower exchange rate, would probably have very little benefit, if any, to the current account. What they would do is ensure that inflation took off in a major way, as it did during the period when he was a Treasury Minister.

Mr. Gow: As forecasts and statistics prove so frequently to be made in error, would the world come to an end if we were to suspend both for a trial period of 12 months?

Mr. Lawson: I can assure my hon. Friend that in those circumstances the world would not come to an end. However, it might be a somewhat controversial measure to put before the House.

Mr. John Smith: Will the Chancellor tell us whether the IMF is wrong in predicting a £17 billion balance of payments deficit? Why should his prediction for 1989 be treated with any more credibility than his prediction for 1988?

Mr. Lawson: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary answered that point earlier, when he pointed out that the IMF frequently gets its forecasts wrong. Indeed, it got its forecasts hopelessly wrong last year, just as all other forecasters did. If I may give advice to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is an up-and-coming politician, I suggest that, if he were to concern himself less with forecasts and more with what is actually happening in the British economy, he would do a great deal better.

Mr. Redwood: Will the Chancellor confirm that the £15 billion unidentified item may include substantial under-recording of exports? Is that not very likely given the completely out-of-date basis for the survey of the service sector which is now such an important component in our overseas earning capacity?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and that is why one of the recommendations of the scrutiny report that came out yesterday, which he will have read, is to try to improve just that sector. It would certainly strain credulity to believe that the entire £15 billion balancing item is accounted for by unidentifed capital flows and none of it by unidentified flows on the current account.

Value Added Tax

Mr. McFall: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much value added tax was paid per annum by an average family in 1978–79; and what was the comparable figure in 1988–89.

Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much value added tax was paid per annum by an average family in 1978–79; and what was the comparable figure in 1988–89.

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much value added tax was paid per annum by an average family in 1978–79; and what was the comparable figure in 1988–89.

Mr. Lilley: A married man on average male earnings with two children would have paid approximately 2·6 per cent. of his earnings in value added tax in 1979–79 and 4·8 per cent. in 1988–89.

Mr. McFall: Does the Minister realise that over the past 10 years the VAT paid by average families with two children and average male earnings had risen from £2 million to over £22 million in real terms, which represents a doubling of the VAT that people paid under Labour? Does the Minister not agree that this regressive tax hits the poorest people in society? When will he stop fooling the British people and his Back Benchers by chattering on about income tax cuts, when he is using the VAT sledgehammer to clobber the British people?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to realise that since 1978–79, the take-home pay of a man on average earnings with one child has risen in real terms by 29 per cent., which takes account of all taxes. Under Labour that family saw an increase of less than 1 per cent. in its real take-home pay. The tax is not regressive, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. McKay: Does the Minister not agree that the £6·60 by which the average family would be better off if VAT represented a proportion of gross income, as it did under Labour, would be helpful to the average family? It would help to pay the mortgage interest that Government policies have increased.

Mr. Lilley: As I have just pointed out, if the average family had to go back to the level of income that it possessed under the last Labour Government, it would be in dire straits. One of the benefits of VAT is that families at least have some choice about whether they pay it. A high proportion of spending goes on zero-rated items, such as food and housing.

Mr. McKelvey: Does the Minister not realise that only an economic illiterate would argue that VAT is anything other than a regressive tax? Does he not understand the effect that it has on poor people, especially those in Scotland who have also been hit by that most obnoxious and regressive tax of all—the poll tax?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. People on three quarters of average income pay less than 4½ per cent. of their income in VAT; someone on average income pays about 4·7 per cent. and someone on one and a half times average income pays 5·1 per cent. Therefore VAT is clearly a progressive and not a regressive tax. That is manifestly obvious and were the hon. Gentleman in contact with his constituents he would realise that the less well off spend a much higher proportion of their incomes on zero-rated items.

Mr. Oppenheim: Given that VAT is not levied on most basic essential items, surely the figures merely prove that, under a Tory Government, people can afford more luxuries.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under a Labour Government they would of course, be able to afford far less. It is sheer hypocrisy for the Labour party to show any concern about any tax because it is, after all, the party of high spending and high taxation.

Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend will be aware that in the calculations of VAT in 1978–79 one major difference for many people was that the whip-round for the drinks and refreshments of one's opponents at sporting events were not VAT rated. That was brought in by the Government in 1982 and will be thrown out as a result of harmonisation. Why not do it in advance of that date?

Mr. Lilley: I know my hon. Friend's strong feelings about the impact that VAT has had upon Beaconsfield rugby club. I have dealt with the matter as best I can. I think that my hon. Friend has a strong case about the treatment that he has received and I apologise to him and his son.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Alton: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 April.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): rose—

Hon. Members: Where is she?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
This morning my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In the course of the day she will be having meetings with President Gorbachev. This evening she will give a dinner for him.

Mr. Alton: While the House will want to give a generous welcome to the remarkable improvement in the human rights record of the Soviet Union, will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to underline the Government's continuing commitment to the 400,000 Jewish refuseniks seeking exit visas and to the 4 million Ukrainian Catholics who have been outlawed since 1946? Will he make it clear that conditional on our attendance at the 1991 human rights conference is the Soviet Union's pursuance of a zero option to end human rights abuses and the renouncement of the sale of weapons to regimes that are opposed to this country's interests and the interests of other Western democracies?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's long-standing concern with those matters. The Prime Minister will, of course, be raising the whole question of Soviet human rights with Mr. Gorbachev and will underline the need for fundamental reform. The Foreign Secretary will be pressing the Soviet Foreign Secretary on a range of specific questions, including those raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 April.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that when the Prime Minister is discussing human rights with the Russians she will raise with Mr. Gorbachev the case of Mr. and Mrs. Zolotarevsky [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] It is not the easiest name to remember. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only wish of that pensioner couple is to be reunited with their daughter and granddaughter in Israel? Does he agree that it is wrong for the Soviet Government forcibly to divide grandparents from a granddaughter? Will the strongest possible representations be made?

Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be writing to my hon. Friend about this case. Although she will probably not have time to discuss individual human rights cases with Mr. Gorbachev, she has asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to raise that case with the Soviet Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Leader of the House tell us whether, when the person who leaked the inspectors' report on the House of Fraser is discovered, the culprit will be prosecuted, like Miss Tisdall and Mr. Ponting, or protected, like Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell?

Mr. Wakeham: I have nothing further to say on that except to remind the right hon. Gentleman that under this Government prosecution is a matter for the proper authorities and not for Ministers.

Mr. Cormack: When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is discussing human rights with Mr. Gorbachev, will she make it plain that we recognise that there has been a significant improvement in that sphere in the Soviet Union? While we expect intentions to be honoured and lived up to, we recognise that progress has been made.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his point well. Certainly that must be part of the message.

Mr. Robertson: The Prime Minister was absent yesterday as well and she sent the Leader of the House to apologise to the House for the unavailability in the Library of promised documents on Namibia. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the key document, the report of the secretary general of the United Nations to the Security Council, on which the Prime Minister based her blame on SWAPO alone for the continuing violence in Namibia, is still not in the Library, and will not be in the Library because it has now been classified as confidential? As the Prime Minister specifically and categorically said on Tuesday that hon. Members could read that report, will the Leader of the House again apologise to the House and ensure that the report is put in the Library today?

Mr. Wakeham: If any apologies are required, they are from the hon. Gentleman for abusing points of order yesterday. That is not a matter for me.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House must accept that the point of order was not out of order.

Mr. Wakeham: I withdraw what I said to the hon. Gentleman. I just noted that his point of order was somewhat long-winded. I apologise for saying what I did.
As I told the House yesterday, relevant documents have been placed in the House of Commons Library. They include the Geneva protocol which has been made public by the South African Government. A further set of documents, which together comprise the United Nations plan, will be placed in the Library today. The secretary general has asked that the report on the recent fighting be kept confidential for the time being.

Mr. Moate: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern about the internationally and nationally important national fruit collections in my constituency—[Interruption.]—which, despite the reaction of the Opposition, are of considerable importance to the country, and which were supported so vigorously recently by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the collections are threatened by the Government announcement of the closure of that fruit centre? Will he please ask the Minister of Agriculture to take no further steps until there has been proper consultation, including—if it is not too much trouble—consultation with the local Member of Parliament?

Mr. Wakeham: I am aware of the position in my hon. Friend's constituency. Final decisions on the closure of the Brogdale research station will not be taken until consultations with the industry are concluded. I shall see to it that my hon. Friend is included in the consultations. If research at Brogdale ceases, suitable arrangements will be made to continue the necessary work on the collection either at Brogdale or at another suitable site.

Mr. Eastham: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 April.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Eastham: Now that the Prime Minister has returned from her tour of central Africa and is able to apply herself to some of the problems at home, will the Leader of the House draw to her attention the homelessness crisis in Britain and the recent statements by Shelter pointing out that thousands of teenagers, who have nowhere to sleep at night and are staying under arches and in doorways, are turning to crime, prostitution and drugs? What will the Government do about it?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that housing in this country is of a much higher standard than it ever was under a Labour Government. The Government have taken particular steps to help those who are worse off.

Economic Performance

Mr. Goodlad: To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the performance of the economy.

Mr. Malins: To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the performance of the economy.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend receives a wide variety of representations.

Mr. Goodlad: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of the Government's management of the economy, the number of jobs in this country has increased since 1983 by 2·75 million—which is the biggest increase of any comparable period since the war—employment is now at its highest-ever level and that those trends are particularly reflected in the north-west of England and are set fair to continue?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The number of people in employment is at a record level—nearly 1 million higher than in 1979. Unemployment has been falling steeply and the figure is now more than 1 million lower than at the time of the last election campaign. The fall has been achieved in less time than the Labour party claimed that it would be able to achieve it—not that the British people remotely believed that claim any more than they believed the forecast of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that unemployment would rise after the Conservative victory.

Mr. Malins: Bearing in mind the importance of small businesses to our economy, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should take yet further steps to minimise the impact of the uniform business rate on smaller businesses, many of which—especially in areas such as Croydon, which has a good record on rates—face swingeing rises under the present proposals?

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the new arrangements will produce a much fairer distribution of rate burdens on commerce and industry. However, the changes are to be phased in gradually and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has proposed a generous level of protection for small businesses to give them plenty of time to adjust to the new uniform business rate.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Leader of the House began his reply by saying,
I have been asked to reply.
When the Leader of the House uses those words does he not worry greatly? Is he aware that, since 1979, all his right hon. Friends who have been "asked to reply" are either in the other place or have returned to the Back Benches? Where does the Leader of the House expect to be by October this year?

Mr. Wakeham: I am always delighted when my right hon. Friend asks me to reply to questions, particularly to those from the hon. Gentleman. However, my right hon.

Friend told the Leader of the Opposition that she would not be able to be here this afternoon because she has made herself available to President Gorbachev—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wakeham: I think, perhaps, I have finished my answer.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not strangely incongruous that, while the Prime Minister warmly embraces Mr. Gorbachev in London and the chemistry is good, she is perfectly willing to build Trident missiles and point them towards the Soviet Union? Will the Leader of the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What has this to do with the performance of the economy?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Prime Minister points them towards the Soviet Union and so may undermine the Soviet economy. What is the target? Is it the Soviet Union or Raisa?

Mr. Wakeham: If, on the 40th anniversary of NATO, the hon. Gentleman has not yet realised that over those 40 years a great part of the West's strength has been our defence, he has a great deal more to learn than even I thought.

Engagements

Sir Richard Body: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 April.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Richard Body: If, as a result of Mr. Gorbachev' s visit, my right hon. Friend believes that there may be more opportunities for expanding trade between East and West, would it not be advisable for Britain to play a more lively part in the affairs of the Economic Commission for Europe, which has been responsible for several hundred agreements and conventions with the object of bringing down trade barriers?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right, but I think that he will also agree that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has played a most important part in just those discussions, and I am sure that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in congratulating her on her achievements.

Dock Labour Scheme

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the future of the dock labour scheme.
The scheme was introduced just after the end of the second world war under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946. An amended scheme was brought into being in 1967 and remains in operation today. It now covers 40 main British ports responsible for handling some 70 per cent. of our national trade. A further 35 ports are outside the scheme because they were not significant for cargo handling in the immediate post-war years.
The scheme is administered by the National Dock Labour Board and its 20 local branches which are made up of equal numbers of trade union and employer members. The boards have very wide powers to control employment in scheme ports, including the numbers employed and ultimate decisions on discipline.
Only those who are on the registers of the boards are permitted to do dock work in scheme ports. An employer who, without approval of the board, uses non-registered dock workers commits a criminal offence. The nature of the dock work itself and the exact areas where the scheme applies are subject to statutory definitions which have remained unchanged since the war.
The original purpose of the scheme was to ensure greater regularity of employment for dock workers. However, since then there have been radical changes in cargo-handling technology. Dock work today, by its very nature, requires a permanent and skilled work force. In ports where none of the scheme's restrictions apply, casual working, which was such a feature of dock work before the war, is very small. In big non-scheme ports like Felixstowe and Dover, it is effectively non-existent.
Over the last 10 years the number of dockers employed in non-scheme ports has risen by a third to around 4,000. During the same period the number of registered dock workers has dropped by nearly two thirds, from 27,000 to 9,400 today.
As the House will know, it is a major objective of the Government to remove barriers to employment and in the last year we have published two White Papers in this area. As part of this continuing process the Government have now reviewed the dock labour scheme and I am publishing today a White Paper which sets out our conclusions. In summary, we believe that the scheme suffers from a range of fundamental defects and that the time has now come to put the position right.
The scheme provides a statutory monopoly in dock work. No one other than employers and workers registered by the dock labour boards can engage in dock work. Given the changes in the nature of dock work, this is not only unnecessary but also totally at variance with the practice in any other industry. It has created two classes of employees in the ports—registered dock workers, and the majority of other workers—and it has certainly not secured good industrial relations in scheme ports.
Management is unable to manage its own work force effectively, and restrictive practices add to the costs of the ports. The public have to pay for the costs of the scheme, both as customers for goods that come through the ports, and as taxpayers. Since the early 1970s the taxpayer has contributed over £420 million, in today's prices, in

payments for voluntary severance, the only means of reducing any surpluses of registered dock workers. A further £350 million of public money has gone to help certain scheme ports survive.
Just as important is the effect that the existence of the scheme has on prospective investment in scheme port areas. Companies are deterred from investing for fear that they will be caught by the scheme. The Government believe that without this constraint there would be more investment and more jobs in our ports and in their surrounding areas.
In short, the dock labour scheme today is a total anachronism. We rely on our ports for the bulk of our trade. We must ensure that they can prepare for the intensified competition that free movement of goods in the European Community after 1992 will bring.
The scheme will not simply wither away of its own accord. For that to happen, our great historic ports, as well as smaller ports all around the country, would have to close permanently. That would involve abandoning major facilities, with all their natural advantages of location and tidal waters, fixed assets and infrastructure, much of it provided at public expense over many years. Local business activity in port areas would suffer equivalent damage.
The Government have concluded, therefore, that positive action is needed to free the scheme ports from their present artificial constraints. Our intention is to bring all port employers and dock workers into exactly the same position as other employers and other workers. The only way in which this can be effectively achieved is through the abolition of the dock labour scheme. Its amendment or restriction would not remedy present defects, and would merely create new problems.
The Government therefore propose to introduce a Bill to repeal all the existing legislation connected with the scheme. The Bill will provide for the National Dock Labour Board to remain in being temporarily to transfer medical and training facilities as the industry requires, and then to wind up its affairs. The Government will assist financially—for example, by meeting redundancy payments due to board staff.
The legislation will also make special provision for registered dock workers. The Government are introducing a new statutory compensation scheme for anyone made redundant during a transitional period after the scheme is abolished. This will provide for individual payments of up to £35,000 until early 1991, and up to £20,000 in the following 18 months. The costs of these payments will be shared equally between the Government and the individual employer concerned. In addition, as soon as the Bill is enacted, dock workers will acquire all the normal employment protection rights which are available to other workers but from which they are currently excluded by virtue of the scheme.
The necessary Bill will be presented to the House tomorrow. As long as the scheme continues to operate, it will remain the biggest obstacle to a modern and efficient ports industry in this country. That is why the Government have decided that the time has now come to abolish the scheme.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is an act of wilful sabotage against this country's economic interest to plunge the nation into politically motivated strife in the docks, as his


statement this afternoon will do, in order to end a scheme covering only 9,500 workers? None of his allegations today remotely provides any economic justification for the abolition of the scheme. I will deal with it point by point.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about restrictive labour practices. How, then, does he explain that over the past 20 years productivity in scheme ports has increased by 700 per cent? There are not many industries that can match that record of productivity.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about job creation in British maritime industries. If he is really concerned about that, why does he not stop the far bigger job losses from allowing British shipowners to flag out their vessels to foreign flags of convenience?
The right hon. Gentleman talks about inhibiting port development. Why is he so blind to the fact that tens of millions of pounds are today being invested by employers—£30 million at Hull, £8 million at Tilbury, £10 million at Newport. £5 million at Bristol and similarly at Dartford—in new multi-million-pound terminals and huge new riverside ro-ro berths, all in scheme ports?
The right hon. Gentleman says that casual working is a small feature of non-scheme ports. How does he square that with the recent statement of Mr. Peter de Savary that he intends to open a new container terminal on the Isle of Grain with a return to the casual system because that suits his needs best?
How does the right hon. Gentleman justify the statement that the scheme increases port costs when, of the £7 to £15 per tonne charged by British companies, only 1½p can be attributed to the scheme?
Why did the right hon. Gentleman not mention that all our main competitors, such as Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, operate dock labour schemes similar to ours? If they all believe that a dock labour scheme is essential to the efficient control of manpower and for good standards of training, medical—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be given a fair hearing.

Mr. Meacher: If a dock labour scheme is essential on the continent for the efficient control of manpower and for good standards of training, medical services and amenities, why is it not necessary here?
Is it not absolutely cynical of the Secretary of State to abolish a scheme which provides 3,300 training places a year, from induction courses to advanced cargo handling, in an industry desperately in need of modernisation and increased competitiveness at a time when he is exhorting the rest of industry to invest in training, which it is not doing?
Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, if there are deficiencies in the scheme, it is because of employers who increase standbys because of their reluctance to train their work force and who will not purchase the mechanical equipment needed for the proper use of their own manpower? Is it not the employers who have brought about the under-use of their labour force by indiscriminately releasing fully fit skilled men from the industry and by allowing the registers to fall below the levels required for a sound, safe and efficient service in the docks?
This statement has a great deal more to do with Thatcherite dogma than with any genuine concern with advancing Britain's economic interest.

Mr. Fowler: No one defends the indefensible as badly as the hon. Gentleman. All he appears to be in favour of is a museum economy in this country. On all the issues that he has raised he is typically wrong.
There is no question but that restrictive practices have reduced the productivity of scheme ports by devices such as ghosting, bobbing and demarcation disputes. If the hon. Gentleman does not know about that, he should look more clearly at the scheme.
The hon. Gentleman asked about employment. In the past 10 years, the number of registered dock workers in scheme ports has dropped from 27,000 to 9,400. Over the same period dock workers in non-scheme ports doubled in number. There is no doubt that the scheme deters investment to the great disbenefit of the port and the area around it. Companies are deterred from investing because of the fear that they will be covered by the scheme.
The hon. Gentleman is also wrong about costs. As far as we can estimate, it adds about 20 per cent. to labour costs and there is no question but that the costs of the scheme have been picked up by the customer and the taxpayer.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about casualism. I obviously accept and sympathise with points made about what the position was like in the past, but it is a non-issue today. Once again, the hon. Gentleman is fighting the battle of half a century ago. There is no evidence of significant casual working in non-scheme ports. No industrial action has been taken on that issue in ports such as Felixstowe and Dover, and it ignores the real requirements of modern ports in a capital-intensive industry.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about other Governments. I remind him that the Socialist Government in New Zealand are doing much the same thing to the dock work regulation scheme in that country. The dock work regulation scheme is a statutory monopoly. It is a criminal offence for an employer to employ anyone other than a registered dock worker. That cannot be right under modern working conditions. It is a historical anachronism that is bad for employment and means that management cannot manage. The scheme is out of date, as is the hon. Gentleman's attitude. We need to rid Britain of the scheme.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I thank my right hon. Friend for responding so effectively to the widespread Back-Bench opinion in favour of the abolition of the scheme. Does he appreciate that his statement will be welcome on Thameside and in other inner-city dockland areas because of the opportunities that will now open for the redevelopment of dock areas and the creation of far more dock jobs?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I pay tribute to him for what he has done in the legitimate campaign against the dock labour scheme. There has been long discussion and much debate about the scheme and there is a growing consensus that it should be abolished. That consensus has been joined not only by Conservative Members but by some in the Opposition parties. One of the reasons for people wanting to see this scheme ended is precisely that which my hon. Friend has given. They see the prospect of development and new jobs and businesses being created.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the Secretary of State has said that there is to be a Bill on this matter. I shall allow questions to go on until 4.15 and then we shall move to the business statement.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Many years ago Aneurin Bevan said that Conservatives or Tories were lower than vermin. Until today, I thought that that was an overstatement. However, on the basis of the disgraceful baying that we have heard this afternoon by Conservative Members, who have never been near a dock in their lives, I now think that it is true. Their attitude will not go unnoticed by the people of this country, because they are lower than vermin. I say that without any qualification. Is it not clear that the scheme, which has been in existence all these years, has given stability—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has every right to put his point of view.

Mr. Heffer: —to workers in the industry and to the industry?
Is it not absolutely clear that once the scheme is abolished there will be a return to casual employment? This is one of the most backward steps that the Government have taken. The Minister had better be quite clear that dock workers and those connected with them will resist this proposal in every possible way. I hope that we shall have a clear statement from my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench that once we get back into office, as we will at the next general election, we will introduce a scheme which operates in every port in the country.

Mr. Fowler: I will leave the hon. Gentleman to take up that issue with his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).
I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that many of my hon. Friends represent constituencies which have docks in them. He must not think that he has a monopoly of concern on this subject. Under the scheme there have been job losses. Over the past 10 years, jobs have been reduced from 27,000 to about 9,000. Industrial relations have also been appalling not simply over one year or two years, but over 10 years or 20 years.
I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Oldham, West about casualism. In non-scheme ports, casual working is minimal, and it scarcely exists in big ports.
With regard to the comments made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) about action, I hope that he—and if not he, then the Opposition Front Bench—will confirm that the proper place for the abolition of the scheme to be debated and decided is in this House. The hon. Gentleman should confirm my view that this is a decision for Parliament and say that he will oppose any steps outside Parliament.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have been advocating the abolition of the dock labour scheme for even longer than the abolition of the earnings rule for pensioners, and the achievement of both within a month is something on which the Government should be congratulated?
In the light of the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), will my right hon. Friend make it clear to those privileged few in the scheme who have benefited for so long at the expense of the consumer and taxpayer that the party is now over, and that the present he is proposing and its terms are, if anything,

over-generous and should be enthusiastically accepted by those who must recognise that we cannot look to the past of our industrial relations but must look to the future of our economy?

Mr. Fowler: It has obviously been a good month and a good year for my right hon. Friend. I am not sure whether I would agree with him that our proposal is over-generous. I think that it is fair. We are proposing £35,000 for those with 15 years' service who are made redundant. That is certainly much more generous than any statutory redundancy provision in this country. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that this is a generous redundancy arrangement. Once the scheme is abolished, there is no reason why the ports presently covered by the scheme should not prosper and why new business should not develop. There is no reason why there cannot be more jobs, particularly in some of the inner-city areas.

Mr. James Wallace: Whatever the necessity for the scheme and its merits when it was introduced, the Minister will agree with us that it has outlived its usefulness. We welcome his announcement to end it. He said that there were two classes of employees in the ports. Does he agree that there are two classes of ports? His announcement today will give scheme ports the opportunity to develop, and it will also bring benefits to them.
As we consider the list of scheme ports, we discover that many are in areas of high unemployment. What analysis has the Minister made of the employment impact of this measure? Although the Bill is to be introduced tomorrow, will the Minister give an undertaking that there will be consultation with the industry, the unions and local authorities in the areas so that job opportunities can be created at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments about the scheme and about the need to abolish it. I believe that they will be widely repeated and echoed throughout the country. The hon. Member for Oldham, West is entirely out of touch with public opinion.
As to jobs, I repeat what I said a moment ago. Without the scheme there is absolutely no reason why we should not see more investment and more business being created in these areas. The result will be more jobs and more employment. That is what I would like to see. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that all who use the port of Liverpool, which I had the privilege of serving for 24 years before entering the House, will be delighted by his statement? Will he confirm that a company such as the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, now that it is no longer the employer of last resort, will no longer be held back from investment in the port because of its position? It will be able to do the sorts of things about which it has been talking to my right hon. Friend's Department, attract trade across the Atlantic and take advantage of the land bridge to Europe from 1992. This is a good step for Liverpool and will be welcomed.

Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. When I was Minister of Transport between 1979 and 1981, I went to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board on a number of


occasions. There is potential there, and it is beginning to be realised at what is a first-class port. The ending of the scheme will be good for Liverpool and good for its port.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister tell the House why he is acting with such provocative haste by publishing a White Paper today and publishing a Bill tomorrow, when for years employers have been told that if they wanted amendments to the scheme they should be prepared to discuss them and to negotiate? Why is the Secretary of State being so provocative? Why is he prepared to risk confrontation, when there is not one word in the document, published only a few minutes ago, showing that there has been any discussion with the unions or with the work force? The right hon. Gentleman is taking away people's livelihood without giving them any opportunity to respond. If he has trouble, that trouble will have been caused by him and by him alone.

Mr. Fowler: Few subjects have been debated more over the past few years than the dock labour scheme. The issues are clear, and there is no question about what they are. We looked at halfway houses. I do not think that halfway houses exist. The hon. Gentleman talks about compromise and about discussion. Compromise and discussion were not forthcoming from the Transport and General Workers Union or in any of the statements—and I have a whole list of them that I can show the hon. Gentleman—from Mr. Connolly. of the union's ports section.
The hon. Gentleman asks, why now? The reason is that I believe that there is an emerging consensus in this country that the scheme should go. I believe that the public will support a Bill to abolish the dock labour scheme.

Sir Ian Lloyd: As someone who has spent much of his life in this industry and has probably seen more ports and port systems than the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) has, I greatly welcome the announcement. Seldom have I heard an announcement which I can welcome with greater sincerity, enthusiasm and conviction than this one.
My right hon. Friend suggested that, so far, the total cost of the scheme has been about £800 million, or £30,000 per docker, to defend what has amounted to the most indefensible, unjustifiable and destructive restrictive practices that the economy has known. Does he think that we should now spend what seems on the face of what he has announced a roughly similar sum to compensate those who are still there?

Mr. Fowler: There is a misunderstanding about that. We propose that people who are made redundant should be paid up to £35,000. That means that a registered dock worker who is made redundant would be paid up to £35,000. Obviously it would depend upon his length of service, but that maximum figure would go to those with 15 years' service. It is specifically not the proposition that every registered dock worker should be paid £35,000.

Mr. Alan Roberts: Will the Minister expect cheering similar to that which we heard from Conservative Back Benchers when the Government announce getting rid of security of employment in the legal profession? [Interruption.] Is the Minister aware—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions take up a lot of extra time.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that the scheme is not a bar to employment? It provides security of employment. It has created the successful, profitable port of Liverpool, in my constituency, a successful grain container terminal, and the only free port that the Government have announced which has been successful. That is directly because of the operation of the scheme and the dockers functioning through it in that free port. All that and the good industrial relations on Merseyside are likely to be destroyed by the Minister's statement. If Conservative Members do not think that there are good industrial relations in the port of Liverpool, they should talk to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), because there are, and it is a successful port because of them.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman started with a peculiar point about the legal profession. He may or may not have noticed that we have put forward proposals on the legal profession. His next two points were no stronger than that. There is no question but that the dock labour scheme is a barrier to employment. Apart from anything else, it prevents investment taking place in any of the scheme areas which will create employment. I will not deal with industrial relations specifically in Liverpool, but industrial relations in scheme ports have been bad over a long period—certainly for the length of the scheme since 1967—and they remain bad today.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in his Department's submission on the White Paper on expenditure, about £44 million of loans to the National Dock Labour Board must now be written off by Parliament? Will he confirm that that is taxpayers' money which will be lost? Will he confirm further that the port of Dover is self-financing and does not cost the taxpayer that sort of money?

Mr. Fowler: That is certainly the case. That decision has been taken. As has already been announced, in addition to the figures that I have given, employers are paid £125 million in cash—that is, over £200 million in real terms—to cover the cost of severance.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As somebody who represents a constituency with a large number of dock workers, I cannot welcome the statement as enthusiastically as my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) did. Given that the Government have a commitment to regenerate the inner cities, how soon will the loss of jobs occasioned in London and elsewhere in port communities by the abolition of the scheme be compensated by increased substitute employment for those who may now find it difficult to get work?

Mr. Fowler: There is a great deal more chance of that happening without the scheme than under present circumstances. Much of the development has been in building. One reason for that has been the restrictions of the scheme itself, so that is one way in which the scheme will no longer have an impact. If one wants jobs and investment that use the skills of local people, one does not need the scheme. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that not only he but the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is in favour of abolishing the dock labour scheme. According to The Scotsman of 5 April, the hon. Member for Gordon said:
It has now become a debilitating, restrictive practice.


I agree with that.

Mr. John Townend: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have been advocating the abolition of the scheme not only for the past 10 years in Parliament, but for the 10 years previously when I was a councillor in Hull and then leader of the county council? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the abolition of the scheme will be welcomed in east Yorkshire? When I was a boy, Hull was the third port, but it has been devastated by the scheme. Now it is not in the first 10 and its container port has been closed as a result of the scheme. Will my right hon. Friend accept that we shall be eternally grateful that we shall be able to compete with Felixstowe on equal terms?

Mr. Fowler: That is right. I want to pay tribute to what my hon. Friend has done, said and campaigned for over the past years. On the last occasion on which I spoke from the Dispatch Box when he was here, he intervened in exchanges on the dock labour scheme. I hope that he is satisfied with the action we have taken.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: What we see today is what happens when little men grapple with big issues. The real intention behind the proposal is to bring down wages and conditions for workers in the docks. There has been no consultation, and no consideration has been given to proposals to extend the benefits of the scheme to the other non-scheme ports, which is the point at issue. Is this not just a decision that this is a time when the Government can afford to face a stoppage in the docks to cut the Chancellor's bloated import figures? The question that has not been answered today is, "Why now?" Why has the decision been taken after 10 years when there is an alternative? If the scheme had the consequences that the Secretary of State claims, it could have been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which could then have held a genuine inquiry, not just an assertion of party political prejudice.

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me answer the question about why the decision has been taken now. Few issues have been more debated and more considered than the dock labour scheme. The issues are clear. There are no halfway houses available and, as the hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience, no compromise has ever been put forward by the Transport and General Workers Union and Mr. Connolly over a long period. For a range of reasons, the scheme is a statutory monopoly and an anachronism with restrictive practices and bad industrial relations. The case for repeal and abolition of the scheme is overwhelming.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Has my right hon. Friend noticed to what extent the little harbours like Teignmouth and Exmouth have prospered without the dock labour scheme, while the whole hinterland of the areas with dock labour schemes has been crucified by the strangulation of their ports? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am satisfied that our ports can continue to thrive even with fair competition from those which are now released? Will that not give the reality of economic life to the areas previously strangled? Why are the official Opposition opposing the expansion of employment in the areas that will benefit from the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced today?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member for Oldham, West will have to answer that question for himself. What my hon. Friend has said is correct. The most significant feature of the past 20 years has been the fact that the non-scheme ports have developed employment, business and investment. At the same time, we have seen a real reduction in employment in the scheme ports. That is a significant contrast. My hon. Friend has put his finger on the point.

Mr. Ron Brown: If the scheme ceases to operate, is not the House and the country giving a charter for cowboys to chase a fast buck at the expense of their employees and of the country? If the dock labour scheme is a hindrance to progress, what about the stock exchange? Will the Secretary of State abolish that? Of course not.
In many ports, including Leith in my constituency, vast efforts have been made to improve productivity and conditions are good for the employees and for the employers. If the Government's proposal goes through, there will be a fight back throughout the country, north and south of the border. The people that I represent will say that the jobs are not to be sold, because they belong to the local community. The Secretary of State must take note of the fact that there will be a struggle.

Mr. Fowler: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's comments took us into areas which even his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West did not seek to enter. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that this is essentially a decision for Parliament. We shall be putting a White Paper and a Bill before Parliament. A Second Reading will be arranged for the Bill in due course. It seems entirely right that the decision on a statutory scheme such as this should be taken here in Parliament. The hon. Gentleman will get little public support for the vague statements that he is making.

Mr. Allan Stewart: In contrast to the comments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), does my right hon. Friend agree with me that his announcement today will be warmly welcomed by industry in Scotland because the scheme has caused great economic damage in Scotland, where an efficient port industry is of particular importance? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that recent events in Aberdeen have highlighted the absurdity and the total unacceptability of the present arrangements?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is no question but that the Government's proposal will be welcomed in Scotland. The situation in Aberdeen is one of the anomalies that the scheme inevitably produces and Aberdeen, as well as Scotland as a whole, will welcome the change.

Mr. Paul Flynn: My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) mentioned my constituency, in which the port of Newport is situated. I wish that the attention of the House had been concentrated on ports such as Newport which has enjoyed extremely good industrial relations and a good degree of prosperity for a number of years. There has also been an increase and a heightening in the skills at that dock, which handles explosives. It has a marvellous record and was paid a tribute by Customs and Excise for its contribution


in keeping down the import of drugs into the town. The port also handles cargoes that can deteriorate in a short time.
The message that is being given today to the people of Newport is that this is not the act of a reasonable Government. The Government are to introduce a Bill without giving even 24 hours' notice. This announcement will come as a bolt from the black and from the darkness of the prejudice of a deaf and arrogant elective dictatorship.
One point will worry many dockers—knowing that the likelihood is that this proposal will be implemented. What protection will be given for the pensions of those who are involved in the scheme now?

Mr. Fowler: The proposals do not in any way affect the pension rights of registered dock workers. I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance straight away.
On the strike record, whatever the position in Newport, one point is absolutely certain—the scheme has not ensured good industrial relations. I shall give the hon. Gentleman two figures. Since 1967, when the amended scheme was introduced, we have lost more than 4 million working days because of disputes in scheme ports. Since 1967 there have been 3,569 disputes in scheme ports; and even today the number of days lost in scheme ports is three times the average for industry as a whole.

Dame Peggy Fenner: My right hon. Friend will be perfectly well aware of the pleasure that I share in his at last recognising with me that not to have done this would have been the defence of the continuously and continually indefensible. As I made my maiden speech on the iniquities of the closed shop, perhaps my right hon. Friend could tell me whether he will make it a really good year this year and include that one as well.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Medway, a great port which has had to suffer a good deal from the loss of the dockyards. the workers will appreciate the chance to compete fairly with the non-scheme ports and will look forward to a continuing growth of that lively port industry in my constituency?

Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree, and pay tribute to what my hon. Friend has done over a long time in her statements on the scheme. Perhaps I may add in parenthesis that I already have proposals in a Green Paper on the closed shop.
My hon. Friend is quite correct: our proposals will enable ports like Medway to compete much more effectively than ever before. That is why I say that they will be good not just for non-scheme but for scheme ports. They will be good for industry and for employment.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Will the Secretary of State note that the public at large may feel it the height of cynicism and arrogance for the Government to seek to reverse the mandates of two past Labour Governments while not having a mandate of their own to abolish the dock labour scheme? Will he note that there will be considerable unease tonight on Teesside where there is a dock registered scheme, where there has been steady expansion with the full co-operation of the work force and where there will be genuine fears that redundancy will be a passport to unemployment, which we have so often seen in the past?
I welcome the comments made by the Secretary of State in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) to the effect that the pension rights will be safeguarded but, when the Bill comes before the House, I can assure the Secretary of State that we shall do all we can to ensure full dockers' rights in the future such as they have had in the past.

Mr. Fowler: It is entirely open and sensible for the hon. Gentleman to say that in the debate on the Bill he and his hon. Friends will want to scrutinise the proposals and to make their own. The right and proper place for that to be done is in Parliament. The scheme is a statutory one. The debate should take place in the House and in Committee in the normal and sensible way in which we organise things.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My right hon. Friend is to be warmly congratulated on announcing the abolition of a regressive, expensive and anachronistic scheme. Will he confirm that it has cost the country billions of pounds to maintain the dock labour scheme, that the scheme has deeply damaged investment in ports, that it has damaged employment in those same ports and that it has sent ships fleeing to mainland Europe to deal with their cargo?

Mr. Fowler: That is substantially correct. One of the effects of the scheme has been to bring development blight in particular areas where it operates. When the scheme is removed, one of the results will be more investment and the creation of more new jobs in such areas. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support.

Mr. Gavin Strang: May I make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that we do not accept the case that he has put forward this afternoon and that we reject his statement about future investment in these ports and the risk of the reintroduction of casual labour? It is for these reasons, among others, that we will oppose the Bill.
Has the Secretary of State not totally failed to explain to the House why he has made this statement at this time, a timing which, according to a telephone call that I made this morning, makes it as big a surprise to the employers as it is to the union? Is it not hard to resist the conclusion that the Government have decided that, at a time when we have a huge and growing deficit on our balance of payments, it may be expedient to run the risk of a long stoppage in our ports?

Mr. Fowler: No, that is not the position, although. t welcome the tone of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has said rather more than I welcome the tone of what the hon. Member for Oldham, West said.
I will repeat the position. Few subjects have been more debated than the dock labour scheme. The issues are very clear. It is a statutory monopoly. The fact that a criminal offence was created by this scheme is completely out of kilter with anything else in industrial relations today. It is bad for employment and investment, and it means that management cannot manage effectively. I believe that abolition of the scheme will lead to a better future for those areas that are at present covered by the scheme.
What I detected in what the hon. Gentleman said and what I welcomed is that those are matters to be debated essentially in the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will make that absolutely clear.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY IO APRIL—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Electricity Bill (3rd day).
Motion on the Lord Chancellor's Salary Order.
Motion on the Medicines (Fixing of Fees Relating to Medical Products for Human Use) Order.
TUESDAY II APRIL—Opposition Day (6th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "The Inadequate Uprating of Pensions and Other Benefits". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "Safety in the Construction Industry". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motion to take note of EC document on weights and measures. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion to take note of EC document on the driving licence. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY I2 APRIL—Debate on a Government Motion on the Fennell report on the investigation into the King's Cross Underground fire (Cm 499).
Motion relating to National Health Service regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY I3 APRIL—Second Reading of the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [Lords].
Afterwards Second Reading of the Atomic Energy Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY I4 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY I7 APRIL—Opposition Day (7th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject for debate to be announced.

[First Debate on Tuesday 11 April


Relevant European Community Document


4102/89
Weights and measures

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

HC 15-xii (1988–89), para 2 and HC 15-xvii (1988–89), para 1

Second Debate on Tuesday 11 April


Relevant European Community Document


10357/1/88
Driving Licensing

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee

HC 15-xvi (1988–89), para 1

Debate on Wednesday 12 April:

National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 396)

National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 392)

National Health Service (Dental Charges) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 394)

National Health Service (Dental Charges) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 363)

National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 419)

National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 326)

National Health Service (General Opthalmic Services) Amendment Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 395)

National Health Service (General Opthalmic Services) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 387)

National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) Amendment Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 517)

National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 393)]

Mr. Frank Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
I shall refer first to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) at Prime Minister's Question Time. Will the Leader of the House make it his business to ensure that the report of the secretary general to the United Nations Security Council is placed in the Library of the House next week, as was promised by the Prime Minister on Tuesday of this week? Will he bear in mind the convention of which he and the right hon. Lady will be aware—that, when Ministers at the Dispatch Box quote from an official document, they should make that document available to everyone else? Documents that Britain receives at the Security Council must fall into that category, especially as it was not simply that the Prime Minister—

Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to Prime Minister's Questions.

Mr. Dobson: I am talking about the business for next week. Will the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) contain himself?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have his chance later.

Mr. Dobson: As the Prime Minister not only mentioned that document, but also told the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) that he could obtain all the details he needed from that document and that it was available, it appears that the burden falls on the Leader of the House to ensure that, in line with the conventions of the House, that document is made available to everyone.
In view of Sir Leon Brittan's recent confirmation of many people's suspicions of the degree of involvement of the Prime Minister's closest advisers in the leaking of the Attorney-General's letter on Westland, will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Prime Minister will come to the House next week to make a statement and to answer further questions on that matter, and especially to clarify once and for all who knew what and when they knew it?
Will the Leader of the House tell us when we can expect the long-promised and the equally long-delayed debate on student loans?
As there is mounting concern throughout the country about the threat that the Government's National Health Service review poses to the health care of most people, will we have an early debate in Government time to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to answer questions in the House rather than spending taxpayers' money roaming around the country on a Tory party political propaganda exercise?
On the subject of the Department of Health, when can we expect a statement on the Government's response to the Griffiths report on care in the community? The


Department has had that document in its possession for more than a year and surely it should be moving towards giving us some suggestion of the Government's intentions.
In view of the particularly precipitate way in which the Government have managed to come forward with a Bill to abolish the national dock labour scheme, when will they come forward with the Bill that they have promised and on which civil servants have been working for four years—if parliamentary answers of 1985 were truthful—to outlaw the buying and selling of human organs?

Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) for asking me six questions about the business for next week. I wondered whether he might have found time today just to say "Thank you" to me for having arranged for the debate on the Fennell report, for which he has been pressing me and also for managing to fit in two Opposition days in the business for next week.

Mr. Dobson: They are not both next week.

Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman had listened, I announced two full Opposition days in the business statement for next week.
With regard to the United Nations plan and the documents concerned, I told the House yesterday that the relevant documents have been placed in the Library. They include the Geneva protocol, which has been made public by the South African Government. A further set of documents, which together comprise the United Nations plan, will be placed in the Library today. The secretary general has asked, however, that the report on the recent fighting should be kept confidential for the time being. On reflection, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that the right thing would be to respect the request of the secretary general. Obviously I shall look into the matter in view of the question asked, but I cannot promise that anything will be revealed at the present time.
With regard to the recent television coverage of a television programme, which neither you, Mr. Speaker, nor I have seen, I understand that Sir Leon Brittan made certain statements which he suggested did not add anything new to the position. That is as I understand the matter and, therefore, I see no need for any further statement on the position, which has been well ventilated in the past.
The hon. Gentleman knows that consultations are taking place about student loans and I believe that the right time for a debate on that matter would be later rather than at present.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a need for a National Health Service debate and I agree that it would be right for the Government to find time for that. The exact timing of it is best left for discussion through the usual channels. I also recognise the consistency with which he has pressed me on the Griffiths report. I understand his disappointment that it has taken rather longer to deal with that matter than he wanted. We are giving active consideration to the report and hope to bring forward our proposals in the near future. We recognise the concern that our response should not be unduly delayed, but it is vital that we reach the right solution in this important area.
There has been some discussion between the Government and the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues about the abhorrent trade in kidneys. If we are

to make progress as fast as we can—both of us are agreed on that, I believe—it is probably best for those discussions to continue through the usual channels.

Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend will know that, from time to time, I have asked questions regarding a ports policy for the United Kingdom. The statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who said that the national docks labour scheme is to be reviewed, obviously makes my question about a ports policy null and void. Nevertheless, there is a need not to demoralise the employees of certain ports, because I know that they will put their shoulders behind the new review. The port of Southampton was closed for a whole year in 1981 due to militancy. It is now working well. If we can persuade the Transport and General Workers Union to adopt a reasonable approach, there will be further co-operation. That can only do good to Southampton.

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am grateful to him for his support for the way the Government are approaching the problem. With the inevitability of these matters, there will be plenty of opportunity for my hon. Friend to raise the issue constructively in the debates that we shall have in forthcoming weeks.

Mr. James Wallace: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to come to the House next week to explain why those who were demonstrating in Whitehall today against human rights abuses in the Soviet Union were told to take down their placards before Mr. Gorbachev arrived, which seems to be almost a contradiction in human rights terms?
Secondly, given that we will debate the Lord Chancellor's salary next week but that we do not have a Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department or on the Law Officers' Department, will the Leader of the House consider setting up an ad hoc Select Committee with powers to call for witnesses and papers to look into the Government's proposals for the reform of the legal profession?
Finally, when did the Prime Minister find out that the United Nations secretary general wished the report on the Namibian incidents to be kept confidential?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not in a position to answer the question about the placards in Whitehall, but I shall make inquiries and see that the appropriate answer is given to the hon. Gentleman.
I do not propose to set up a special Select Committee to deal with our law proposals. I believe that the right procedure is that which the Government have adopted, which is to issue Green Papers for discussion. We hope to get as many constructive views as we can. Then the Government will have to make up their mind how best to act.
I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's third question, but it was certainly not until after my right hon. Friend had said what she did in the House.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Can the Leader of the House tell us when the Second Reading of the Bill on the dock labour scheme is likely to take place? Is he aware that today's announcement will be warmly welcomed by the vast majority of people connected with and working in King's Lynn docks, who realise that the


abolition of the scheme will lead to more jobs? It will also lead to much more cargo being handled at King's Lynn and will enable it to compete with non-scheme ports in East Anglia.

Mr. Wakeham: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. The Bill will be introduced tomorrow and the House will have an opportunity to debate it in the usual way, subject to the usual conventions. I hope to make a business statement including the Second Reading of the Bill in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Max Madden: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to two early-day motions standing in my name, numbers 672 and 673, concerning freemasonry?
[That this House notes, as reported in the book, Inside the Brotherhood by Martin Short, that most Right honourable and honourable Members who completed a questionnaire issued by Mr. Short in 1986 said that councillors, local government officers, civil servants, policemen, judges and honourable Members should be required to disclose Masonic membership; therefore urges the Select Committee on Members' Interests to make necessary arrangements for appropriate resolutions to be considered by the House to require Right honourable and honourable Members to disclose Masonic membership in the Register of Members' Interest; further urges Parliamentary journalists who are Masons to be required to make an appropriate declaration; and finally urges the appointment of an Ombudsman to whom public servants, including police officers, can make complaints of discrimination in public employment.
That this House congratulates Martin Short on the publication of his book, Inside the Brotherhood; notes that the honourable Members for Ilford South, Croydon South, Chichester, Erewash, Banbury and Belfast North told Mr. Short they were Masons; further notes that Mr. Short believes that the honourable Members for Bury South, Reading East and Keighley are Masons; and finally notes Mr. Short reveals the Masonic Lodge to which Right honourable and honourable Members, Parliamentary Officers and staff belong is called the New Welcome Lodge (5139 ) which was consecrated in 1929 and meets five times a year at Freemason's Hall in London, and that Parliamentary Journalists who are Mason's belong to the Gallery Lodge (1928).]
May I unusually ask the Leader of the House himself to make a statement next week in view of the support of more than 200 hon. Members from all parties for the proposal that hon. Members who are masons should be required to declare their masonic membership in the Register of Members' Interests? Will the Leader of the House next week ask the Select Committee on Members' Interests to consider the matter urgently so that the necessary motions may be brought to the House?

Mr. Wakeham: As I told the hon. Gentleman in answer to a written question on 3 March 1988:
Any consideration of changes in the scope of the Register of Members' Interests or the Register of Parliamentary Journalists would, in the first instance, be a matter for the Select Committee on Members' Interests."—[Official Report, 3 March 1988; Vol. 128, c. 638.]
That is where he should pursue the matter.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the debate on the Health Service that he has promised takes place at an early date and allows us to discuss the proposed contract for general practitioners? I think that he will have noticed that it has not been received with unanimous rapture by the practitioners.

Mr. Wakeham: Whether that is within the scope of the debate is not a matter for me but for you, Mr. Speaker. I should think that my hon. Friend, with his usual ingenuity, will be able to make the points that he wants to make on that subject.

Mr. Pat Wall: May I bring to the attention of the Leader of the House a recent report by John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General, regarding serious underpayments in the national insurance fund and the social fund—in particular, an estimate of underpayment of unemployment benefit of between £34 million and £89 million? That is very serious because it affects some of the most deprived people in our society. The money was not paid because of an error by Government Departments. The Minister responsible, if he is not prepared to initiate a debate in the House, should make a statement on payment to the unemployed. He should give an explanation and describe what measures will be taken to rectify the matter.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether this is the same report from the Comptroller and Auditor General as that which I looked at the other day. I thought that there had been errors in allocation of costs rather than beneficiaries going short of anything to which they were entitled. However, I shall investigate the matter and I believe that the Public Accounts Committee will also consider some of these issues in the near future. If something has not been properly answered, I shall ensure that it is.

Mr. Charles Wardle: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the recent consultation about possible amendments to the Financial Services Act 1986. Will he find time for a debate on the subject, with particular reference to the role of merchant banks? Does he recall that in the debate on the financial services White Paper in April 1985, several hon. Members, including me, referred to the possible conflicts of interest in merchant banks, but subsequent legislation left out that aspect?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise that we shall have a debate in the near future but I shall certainly refer my hon. Friend's point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to see what can be done in the future.

Mr. Robert Parry: Does the Leader of the House recall a question that I put to him some weeks ago regarding early-day motion 395?
[That this House calls upon the South African Goverment to release Mr. Oscar Mpetha a 79 year old trade union leader imprisoned since 1980; notes that he had his leg amputated in 1983, that he is a diabetic with complications and was refused permission to leave prison in 1986 to attend his wife's funeral; believes that his imprisonment is solely due to his struggle on behalf of black workers and as a member of the South African Congress of Trades' Unions and as President of the African National Congress in the


Cape; welcomes Her Majesty's Government's representations to the South African Government on his behalf; and calls upon the South African authorities to release Mr. Mpetha as a matter of urgency.]
That is supported by 118 hon. Members. Mr. Mpetha, who is imprisoned in South Africa, lost his son last week when he was killed in an accident. Will the Government make urgent representations for his immediate release on compassionate grounds?

Mr. Wakeham: As I have said on previous occasions, the Government have made representations to the South African Government on at least five separate occasions. I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, published on 22 March, on the production, distribution and sale of beers in this country? It will have a widespread effect on the brewing industry. Many of the major breweries are established in the midlands and there is a wave of uncertainty running through the industry. I should value it if my right hon. Friend would give an assurance that there will be a debate on this important subject.

Mr. Wakeham: It is an important subject and, in another capacity, as chairman of the Government's committee on the misuse of alcohol, I know that changes in the structure of the brewing industry are important for us to consider. However, many of my Government colleagues are also considering the matter, so it is being carefully examined.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In light of the fact that Mr. Tiny Rowland has repeatedly used the Lonrho broadsheet to call for the prosecution of the Al-Fayeds over their trading practices, is it not now time for the Government to review the decision taken in 1977, which meant that prosecutions would not be brought under section 84 of the Larceny Act 1861, section 19 of the Theft Act 1968, and section 7 of the Exchange Control Act 1947 or for conspiracy to commit breaches of the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) (No. 2) Order 1968? Is it not time to review the decision and bring prosecutions under all four headings against the owners of The Observer?

Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, questions of prosecution are not for me. He may or may not have a case on the reforms of such matters, about which he is knowledgeable, but I regret that, even if they were acceptable to everybody, I could not find time for a debate next week. However, I shall refer the matter to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I did not catch all of my right hon. Friend's statement, but may I draw his attention to the fact that during yesterday's sitting of the Select Committee on European Legislation the recommendation was made that a heavily amended draft directive on broadcasting should be brought before the House for debate before the common position is agreed? As that common position may well be agreed next Thursday, will my right hon. Friend look into that matter?

This is an important matter, as the directive has been much amended since it was last debated by the House as long as two years ago.

Mr. Wakeham: I understand my hon. Friend's concern and those expressed in the debate on the original proposals in January 1987, most of which have been met by the latest draft directive on broadcasting. I accept that the proposal has changed, but there has been a debate on the subject and I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the changes were largely foreseeable and will generally find favour in the House. We have a heavy business programme next week which I cannot easily alter, but I am having discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office on the subject.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the need for a statement next week as a result of Sir Leon Brittan's further revelation, for which we do not have to wait until Friday night; we have already heard it on television and read it in the newspapers. There is a strict constitutional convention in Britain, which does not have a written constitution, that Law Officers' letters should not be revealed. Two Law Officers nearly resigned on the issue and we now find that two civil servants at No. 10 took it upon themselves to reveal that letter, self-authorised. Two basic questions arise: first, why did they do it, and, secondly, why have they not been removed from their posts for doing so?

Mr. Wakeham: The right hon. Gentleman, who has a reputation for objectivity in such matters, should look at the report of the Select Committee on Defence and the debates in the House at the time. If he does that, he will see that nothing new has arisen. These matters were referred to. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in names he should look at the Select Committee's report, which was published and debated a long time ago. All the issues have been well ventilated. There is nothing fresh or new in the statement made by Sir Leon Brittan, as he confirmed yesterday.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if President Gorbachev had arrived 24 hours earlier and had used the Underground, he would not have been able to keep his appointments, like many other Londoners, owing to the most uncalled for strike by the drivers, and, according to a CBI report, if he comes in 10 years' time, unless he uses a helicopter he will not be able to move because London traffic will be at a standstill. Therefore, may we have a debate next week on the management of traffic in London, and could the motion include the possibility of a Minister with responsibility for London's traffic?

Mr. Wakeham: I was at the airport yesterday to meet President Gorbachev, when adequate road transport was available for him. However, I have every reason to believe that those arrangements were made regardless of whether there was a strike of Underground workers. I regret that, against the advice of the union, Underground workers took unofficial action yesterday. It would be much better if proper negotiations to settle the dispute were entered into without delay. On my hon. Friend's wider question about ministerial changes, I do not think that that is a matter for me or that it arises today in particular.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Leader of the House make time for an early debate on the repeal of rent legislation which has brought about a fourfold increase in the rents in housing association properties in my constituency, which has been forced on retired people and highlighted so well in The Scotsman today? Will the right hon. Gentleman give time for an early debate on the plight of retired people in retirement homes?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate, but I should be tempted to have one because I suspect that his analysis of the situation was not a particularly balanced one. However, the points he has raised about elderly people seem to be relevant to the debate that I have managed to arrange for Tuesday of next week.

Sir Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the widespread concern in all parts of the House as a result of the tragic events on the Namibia-Angola border. He may also be aware that those of us who recall the record of the United Nations in Katanga do not exactly have the utmost confidence in the ability of that organisation to react expeditiously and impartially. My right hon. Friend may not be aware of recent reports that aerodromes for advanced fighter aircraft are being constructed on the Angolan border, and that specialist Vietnamese troops are being brought into Angola to replace the Cubans. In the light of these very serious events, may we have an early opportunity to debate this matter?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of the matter, and I recognise my hon. Friend's knowledge of that area, based on many years' experience. I wish that I could offer a debate in the near future. I shall certainly bear the matter in mind, but I cannot give my hon. Friend a promise.

Ms. Diane Abbott: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 44 on cosmetic experiments on animals?
[That this House is appalled by the failure of the Animals Act 1986 to prevent the testing of animals for cosmetic purposes; notes that in 1987 there were still 14,534 animals being used in cosmetic experiments and considers this totally unacceptable; and calls upon the Home Secretary to cease the granting of any further licences for cosmetic testing and furthermore to put a time limit on those existing licences for the same purposes.]
May I draw to his attention the fact that this is a completely barbaric and unnecessary practice, about which I have had very many letters from constituents? The early-day motion has been signed by more than 200 hon. Members. In the light of the feelings of millions of people up and down the country, will the Leader of the House make time for an early debate on this issue?

Mr. Wakeham: I have seen the hon. Lady's early-day motion. The term "cosmetic" covers not only beauty preparations, such as lipstick and perfumery, but hygienic products, such as toothpaste and anti-dandruff shampoos, as well as preparations to combat other problems, particularly for workers in industry. It is essential that all these products are safe to use and safe to produce. Safety testing, for mildness only, involves some use of animals. All applications for cosmetic testing licences are examined

by the Animal Procedures Committee, whose first report, published on 6 December, describes the difficult issues involved and its approach to them. I cannot promise the hon. Lady a debate at the present time, but it is a matter that I shall certainly bear in mind.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I warmly endorse my right hon. Friend's decision not to waste any more of our time debating the Westland affair and its aftermath. Sir Leon Brittan, in his most recent remarks, has added nothing to what we knew already. He has not said anything that is inconsistent with anything said by the Government in the past. Although the endearing, but slightly barmy Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and his friends may have an obsession—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman can do better than that. I do not think that we will have "barmy" here.

Mr. Hamilton: It was a slip of the tongue, Mr. Speaker, which I certainly withdraw.
Although the hon. Member for Linlithgow and many of his hon. Friends are obsessed by this topic, the country at large has no interest in it whatsoever.

Mr. Wakeham: As I have indicated, I do not think that there is anything new to be debated or discussed, and I am glad to have the support of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Leader of the House suggesting that the recent statement by Sir Leon Brittan is in any way consistent with the evidence given, on behalf of the Government, by Lord Armstrong of Ilminster to the Select Committee? Is he saying that the Select Committee had any notion that there was explicit approval by two of the most senior civil servants? Would the Leader of the House feel it right next week to make a statement on his own position, in the light of the assertions by his hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) in the book "Heseltine"—the unauthorised biography—page 153, that he was present on 4 and 5 January 1986 when there were discussions at Chequers on tactics in relation to the Law Officers' letter, that he was present on 18 December 1985, with Mr. Bernard Ingham and Lord Whitelaw, when the strategy was being discussed, and that he was party to the inner Cabinet decisions on 9 January? Can he confirm his hon. Friend's statements, which are in writing?

Mr. Wakeham: The last time the hon. Gentleman raised the subject in that form he seemed to have got stuck at page 153 of the book. I suggest that he finishes the book, but I do not think that anything in it will give him any grounds for saying that the Government have not been forthcoming and that there have not been proper inquiries. Nothing new has come out in what Sir Leon Brittan has said. There is not just my word for it; Sir Leon himself, said there is nothing new. I see no grounds for an inquiry.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend find Government time for a debate about the inadequacies of the law on travelling people, some of whom may be gipsies? Many of my constituents have suffered great invasion of privacy and often abuse, from these people, who just camp without invitation. The police find it very difficult to move them on under the current legislation. Will he find time for this debate at an early date and will


he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for a White Paper on the Caravan Sites Act 1968?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate, but I recognise that this matter causes concern in quite a number of constituencies, including his and, as a matter of fact, mine. I wonder whether my hon. Friend might consider raising the matter on an Adjournment debate.

Mr. David Winnick: Would it not be appropriate for the Prime Minister to make a statement next week to try to explain to the House and the country how her private secretary and her press secretary could approve and authorise the leak of the letter from the Solicitor-General unless they knew quite well that it would be her wish that they should do so? The Leader of the House tells us that what was said yesterday by Sir Leon Brittan is nothing new, and all the rest of it, but does he not recognise and appreciate that what is at stake here is the Prime Minister's integrity and truthfulness? My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), although he has been mocked and baited by the Tories over this issue, has been absolutely right.

Mr. Wakeham: These issues were well and truly debated at the time and nothing new has come up. Whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, that is the position. He might have got a little excited yesterday, but he really has missed the point. There is nothing new to discuss.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Leader of the House take time to read the two contributions on the Westland affair by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? If he does he will find that she suggested that her office had nothing to do with it. Sir Leon Brittan said yesterday quite categorically that Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell approved the action. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to come to the House and make a statement on why those two close associates of hers have not resigned? Will she at the same time give us a full, factual, detailed account of this squalid matter of the missing letter?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman invites me to take a quiet moment to read all these documents and speeches again. I did that just this morning in order to refresh my mind because I thought that some of these matters might come up in business questions. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has not read them and I suggest that he should, because he would then probably agree with me that nothing new has arisen and therefore there is no need for a debate.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I have a two-part question. First, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House early next week on her discussions with President Gorbachev? Secondly, just in case President Gorbachev asked to see me, I thought that I would brush up on a video on nuclear disarmament from the Library, only to find after a short viewing that another Member wanted to watch the television, and I was chucked out of the room. That is not the first time this has happened. Can we make sure that there is a room in this place in which Members can look at videos to do with work?

Mr. Wakeham: Any time the hon. Gentleman wants to watch the television and he cannot find a place to do so, if he will drop me a note I will look into it immediately. I am very happy to assist him in any way on that part of his question. On the first part of his question, I cannot give any undertaking that the Prime Minister will be making a statement on her talks with President Gorbachev.

Mr. Greville Janner: Surely the Leader of the House can and ought to give an undertaking to the House that the Prime Minister will report not merely to the press but to the House on this very important and welcome visit by Mr. Gorbachev. Does the right hon. Gentleman know that, while the Jewish community in this country unanimously welcomes the visit, it remains deeply concerned at the large number of Jewish families still not allowed to emerge from the Soviet Union in spite of the fact that there has been a most welcome change in the Soviet Union's attitude both to emigration and to the rights of Jewish people within the Soviet Union? In particular, there are families such as the Upspensky family, the Chernobilsky family and the Lurie family who have been waiting over 10 years.
I was disturbed to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that there was to be no raising of individual cases by the Prime Minister with Mr. Gorbachev. Will he please reconsider his remarks and his failure to assure the House that there will be a statement on both human rights and the allegations that have been made about the sale to the Libyans by the Soviets of long-distance aircraft, which of course would have amazing potential in the hands of somebody like Gaddafi?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not in a position to say anything about the details of the talks, which are still going on. What I said was perfectly sensible and fair. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will, of course, raise the general matters in her talks with Mr. Gorbachev, but it seemed to be the best use of the day for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to raise the individual cases with him. As the hon. and learned Gentleman has great knowledge of, and long experience in, these matters and his contribution is acknowledged by hon. Members on all sides of the House, I certainly take seriously what he says. Statements in the House are governed by custom and practice and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will observe the normal customs in dealing with these matters. It is not for me to say at the Dispatch Box what she will or will not do. It is not the practice always to have statements after bilateral discussions.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Can the Leader of the House confirm that the two EEC documents on Tuesday will be debated for only one and a half hours each? If that is the case, surely it is an inadequate amount of time when dealing with the EEC bulldozer yet again imposing more legislation on the United Kingdom.
May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 670 and ask for a debate on it?
[That this House draws attention to the editorial, Vilest M.P. in Britain, in the newspaper Today of 5th April, referring to the honourable Member for Dover; notes its expression of grave concern at the growth of violence against women; and urges all honourable Members to set an example of courtesy and restraint, whether towards reporters, photographers or Spanish police.]


Then the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), referred to in the motion, will be able to explain how he falsely alleged that pickets at Dover—National Union of Seamen members sacked by P and O—were engaging in brutality and the double standard of the fact that the hon. Gentleman is accused by Today of beating up a woman photographer. That sort of double standard should be the subject of debate. At the same time, the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), who has been engaging in fisticuffs with the Spanish police, can explain his position as a representative of the law and order party. Can the Leader of the House, in the same debate, explain why there is this extensive thuggery in the parliamentary Conservative party and has it anything to do with lager drinking on the quiet?

Mr. Wakeham: If we were to have this debate I am glad that I would not have to be in the Chair, Mr. Speaker. There seem to be rather a lot of subjects and I would not want to have to keep that sort of debate in order.
I confirm that the motions on Tuesday night on EC documents will follow the Standing Orders of the House. These matters have been agreed through the usual channels and, assuming there are enough speakers for the Opposition Day debate and that does not end until 10 o'clock, there will be one and a half hours for each of those two debates.
With regard to early-day motion 670, I cannot arrange a debate on that. Anyone who wishes to complain of assault can go to the police or deal with the matter in other ways. If I had to arrange a debate every time that occured or every time the hon. Gentleman made some wild allegations about my hon. Friends, we would never get down to all the important matters such as dealing with the levy scheme.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Unfortunately the Leader of the House does not appear to be aware of the seriousness of Sir Leon Brittan's allegations in the television programme. If the Leader of the House is saying that what Sir Leon Brittan said in that programme is acceptable to the Government, he is saying that the Government knew that the press secretary and the private secretary leaked the Law Officer's letter. If that is accepted by the Leader of the House, it is a staggering new development and gives rise to a serious situation.
Against that background will the right hon. Gentleman come to the House next week and explain why my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) can be named and suspended from the proceedings of the House for five days on a motion by the Leader of the House for what is now seen to be the truth? In what circumstances can the suspension be removed, and if there are no provisions for removing it can the matter be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure?

Mr. Wakeham: I think that we are making progress when the charming hon. Gentleman, whom the whole House respects, can talk so much rubbish in such a short time. We clearly recognise that it is not a question of the Opposition fox having been shot, because there was no fox for them to shoot in the first place. The allegations and problems that arose over what is known as the Westland affair were fully debated at the time. We had debates in the House and Select Committee reports, and nothing new has

emerged in recent times to require any further discussion or debate about the matter. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are disappointed that that should be the case. That is why the Opposition put up the charming hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) to try to make something out of the mess in which they find themselves.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Could we have a statement or debate on the operation of regulations made under section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984? After a four-year campaign by shopkeepers and residents in the East Park road area of my constituency, the city council established some laybys but, because of the provisions of section 1 of the Act, nobody can park in them until the double yellow lines have been removed. Under the terms of the Act it will take seven months to remove those lines. Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Secretary of State for Transport to see whether we can amend the regulations to end this absurd scenario?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I certainly accede to his request to raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and I shall write to him.

Mr. Richard Caborn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to come to the Dispatch Box next week to make a statement about the Namibia crisis and the implementation of United Nations resolution 435? The Prime Minister should do that because she misled the House on no fewer than three occasions on 4 April. She told the House:
There is no provision in the United Nations plan for SWAPO to have bases in Namibia."—[Official Report, 4 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 15.]
That would be in contravention of protocol SI 13120 of 26 February 1979.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, the statement by the secretary general to the Security Council is not in the Library and is not likely to be put there because it is a confidential document. The implication about SWAPO and the impression given to the outside world by the House was based on that report which we cannot see, although we were told at the time that we would have sight of the document.
The third matter is about SWAPO being a signatory to the Geneva protocol. That is mentioned in column 15 of the Official Report of 4 April 1989. That is not the case. SWAPO is not a signatory to that and the letter from the leader of SWAPO to the secretary general did not accept the protocol, which had four signatories. Misleading statements were given to the House indicating a totally biased approach against SWAPO. This is a serious matter, because we are talking not just about the independence of Namibia but about matters that affect the whole of southern Africa. As I have said, the Prime Minister misled the House on three occasions and she should now come to the House and make a statement.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept that at all. We have discussed whether the documents were in the Library and I recognise that there was some misunderstanding. The first requirement is for urgent action to restore the ceasefire under the authority of the United Nations. We are active in promoting that. Secondly, it is important for


all parties to hold to the terms of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia and to the other international undertakings, notably the Geneva protocol. It has been suggested that there was a provision for SWAPO bases in the country. That assertion is based on proposals made by the then secretary general in February 1979. Those were overtaken by a subsequent agreement in 1982 by the parties involved to monitor bases in Angola and Zambia. That is why there is no provision in the secretary general's report of 23 January, which sets out his proposals for the role of the United Nations transition assistance group, for any SWAPO bases inside Namibia.

Points of Order

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise with you the procedures that were observed today during Prime Minister's Question Time? Some of us were rather puzzled about why question No. 4 was linked to question No. 8. It is unprecedented for questions to be linked at Prime Minister's Question Time, and the linking today prevented hon. Members from asking questions Nos. 5, 6 and 7. Today as always well over 100 hon. Members put down a standard question. Why should what is traditionally called the "closed question" be given priority? If this is the name of the new game, you are likely to be faced, Mr. Speaker, with hon. Members putting down questions in that way in the hope that they will be linked and will therefore obtain priority. Will you look urgently at this matter and advise the House, because if an unfortunate precedent has been set today it should be removed as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I share his concern about this matter and have made my views known.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you make a statement saying quite clearly, not that you have views about the matter but that you will not accept linking of questions to the Prime Minister? You will see that later in the Order Paper there is another question identical in type and form to questions Nos. 4 and 8. Quite clearly conspiracies could develop to flood the Order Paper so that one party could dominate the Order Paper to the exclusion of other parties. It would simplify matters if it was understood that there would be no linking at all.

Mr. Speaker: The linking of questions is a matter for Ministers and not for the Chair. As I have said, I share the concern expressed about this matter for the very reasons that hon. Members have mentioned.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot say any more about the matter. I hope that it will not happen again.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I clearly recollect one of your predecessors intervening when questions near the top of the Order Paper were linked with later ones. That was about 10 years ago. The Speaker of the day intervened and stopped that practice. I note and I am grateful for the fact

that you have made your views known, Mr. Speaker. May we have some assurance that your representations will be as effective as those of your predecessor?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the precedents of this matter is rather greater than that of those who advise me. I will certainly take into account what he has said.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no strong views about these matters and I will seek to do whatever is in the best interests of the House. In his enthusiasm to show his great knowledge of this matter, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) did not perhaps consider the Order Paper or the problem very carefully. If he does, he will see that whether what I did was generally acceptable or not, is one matter. However, there were three questions between questions 4 and 8. Two of them were reached and those hon. Members who asked them have no particular grounds for grievance. The other question was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) who, in spite of his question not being reached, seemed to manage quite well.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very busy day ahead of us. I have already made my views on this matter clear and the Leader of the House has accepted what I have said.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dobson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that under the conventions of this House it is accepted that, roughly speaking, Ministers can decide whether to link questions. However, there is a convention over and above that which states that the linking should apply only to questions which are likely to be reached. Many hon. Members, probably from both sides of the House, are very dubious about a development in which a question which was on the borderline of not being reached can be linked. Having been linked, other questions tabled by Members who came higher in the ballot were not reached. The House would want a general view and a ruling from you, Mr. Speaker, if Ministers are to believe that they can link one question with one which may be so far down the list that it receives a leg up and is answered when it would not otherwise be answered.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to correct the Leader of the House. Question 6 to the Prime Minister stood in my name and that certainly was not reached. Question S was reached, but questions 6 and 7 were not. Question 8 had precedence. That is what the argument is about.

Mr. Speaker: I agree.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that when tabling questions, particularly about matters which are regarded as historic, a point is reached when it is questionable whether matters are new in relation to the events in question. My point of order is relevant to


the courteous exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) and the Leader of the House.
The Leader of the House said that nothing new had arisen from the statement made by Sir Leon Brittan. I wonder whether you will allow the Leader of the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, to tell us where in previous exchanges in the House or in any Select Committee report the two civil servants named by Sir Leon Brittan are named as being responsible for the leak. Unless and until such a demonstration is made in this House now or in future, the assertion of the Leader of the House must be found wanting and questions can be tabled which otherwise would not be raised.

Mr. Speaker: It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman was not here—at least I did not see him here—during business questions, because he could have put that question to the Leader of the House then.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. A lot of hon. Members would take a different point of view and would be very grateful if you could protect the House from the turgid and continuous regurgitation of this boring and bogus historical issue which may be of rotting political interest to a small out of touch portion of the chattering classes, but the vast majority of the country could not give a tuppeny whatever about it.

Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very long day ahead of us. If the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has a legitimate point of order, I will have to deal with it.

Mr. Spearing: I invite you, Mr. Speaker, on this very important matter, to ask whether the Leader of the House would be willing to demonstrate where these matters were made explicit—namely, that the two civil servants concerned were named in official documents and therefore there is nothing new. Unless that is done, the House may doubt the words used by the Leader of the House in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing).

Mr. Robert Parry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you explain why, in the statement on the abolition of the dock labour scheme, as the only Liverpool Member in the House who has Liverpool docklands in his area, I was not called?

Mr. Speaker: I can easily explain that. With the greatest good will in the world to all hon. Members, it would have been completely impossible for me to call every hon. Member who had an interest in the matter during the

statement. It is a question of judgment on the part of the Chair to try to have every part of the country represented. I am extremely sorry for the hon. Gentleman. I called him during business questions and I thought that he might have raised his point then.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I am a great student of procedure in this House. I have sat here for endless hours without being the slightest bit interested in the debate—just watching you very carefully to see how you run the business. My interest in procedure has been heightened with my appointment as chairman of the Scottish convention on the constitution issue. I thought about asking to try your wig on, Mr. Speaker, but I had better not.
I have noticed in recent weeks that there is a new practice of the Chair calling Conservative Back Benchers after the Opposition Front Bench spokesman has questioned the relevant Minister—today it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. For my benefit, can you explain what procedural advantage is gained from that?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of judgment for the occupant of the Chair. One day perhaps the hon. Gentleman may have this very difficult job.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the eight motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the Community Service Orders Rules 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 191), be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Air Quality Standards Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 317), be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.
That the Health and Safety (Emissions into the Atmosphere) (Amendment) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 319), be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Control of Industrial Air Pollution (Registration of Works) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 318), be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Fees) Amendment Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 388), be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Fees in Criminal Proceedings) Amendment Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 390), be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Confirmation to Small Estates (Scotland) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 289), be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Gaming Act (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 362), be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Gerald Howarth.]

Orders of the Day — Electricity Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New clause 7

ENERGY CONSERVATION

'. The Director shall have a duty to promote the efficiency and conservation of energy and in carrying out that duty shall in particular—

(a) ensure that public electricity suppliers take such active steps as, in his opinion, are reasonable to maximise energy efficiency and conservation; and
(b) set annual targets for improvement in energy efficiency for public electricity suppliers which he shall publish and on the attainment of which he shall report to the Secretary of State'.—[Mr. Blair.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tony Blair: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 12—The Deputy Director General of Electricity Supply for Energy Conservation—

'. —(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint an officer to be known as the Deputy Director General of Electricity Supply for Energy Conservation (in this Act referred to as the Deputy Director for Conservation) the purpose of carrying out functions relating to energy conservation and efficiency.

(2) The Deputy Director for Conservation shall have a duty to exercise the functions assigned to him by this Part in the manner which he considers is best calculated to secure—

(a) that all functions relating to the supply, generation and transmission of electricity are carried out in a manner that requires the most efficient use of electricity;
(b) that all functions relating to the supply, generation and transmission of electricity are carried out in a manner that requires the conservation of energy;
(c) that no new plant is developed unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Deputy Director for Conservation that the required capacity cannot be met by additional measures of efficiency or conservation.

(3) An appointment of a person to hold office as the Deputy Director for Conservation shall be for a term not exceeding five years; but previous appointment to that office shall not affect eligibility for re-appointment.

(4) The Secretary of State may remove any person from office as Deputy Director for Conservation on the grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour.

(5) Subject to sub-sections (3) and (4) above, the Deputy Director for Conservation shall hold and vacate office as such in accordance with the terms of his appointment.

(6) The provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act relating to the director shall have effect with respect to the Deputy Director for Conservation.'

New clause 14—Environmental Duties—
The Secretary of State and the Director shall each have a duty to exercise the functions assigned to him in this part in a manner which is best calculated to preserve, protect and improve the environment and to this effect shall place on all licence holders a duty:
(i) to achieve target improvements, which shall be set annually, in the efficient use of energy;
(ii) to achieve target reductions, which shall be set annually, in pollution.

Amendment No. 117, in clause 7 page 6, line 17, at end, insert—

'(c) such conditions as the Director may determine which enable the holder of a licence to conform to pollution legislation through:—
(i) energy efficiency measures;
(ii) the expansion of alternative renewable generating sources;
(iii) a system determined by the Director which allows one licence holder to offset the reduction requirements of another licence holder.'.

Amendment No. 124, in clause 8 page 7, line 4, alter 'supplier', insert '(a)'.

Amendment No. 126., in clause 8 page 7, line 6, at end add—
'(b) to promote energy conservation in the supply and use of electricity to his consumers.

Amendment No 128, in clause 8 page 7, line 11, after 'competition', insert 'and energy conservation.'.

In connection with this grouping, I am prepared to allow reference to new clause 17 which is an amended version of former clause 13. I have not selected it for a separate division.

Mr. Blair: The purpose of new clause 7 is to impose on the Director General of Electricity Supply a duty to promote the efficiency and conservation of energy and in carrying out that duty … to ensure that public electricity suppliers take such active steps as, in his opinion, are reasonable to maximise energy efficiency and conservation and set annual targets for improvement in energy efficiency.
New clause 14 supplements that by imposing a duty on the director general and the Secretary of State to set targets for improvements for the emission of pollutants.
We will debate energy conservation and more environmentally beneficial ways of generating electricity under this group of amendments. Later we will combine heat and power and discuss other matters relating to the environment. This is effectively "environment day".
I want to begin by referring to an intriguing press release from the Press Association the other day. It revealed that next week the Secretary of State will have talks with Soviet Ministers about energy use and the need to safeguard the environment. He will do that during his five-day trip as head of a delegation of top business men. I found it rather intriguing and not a little bizarre that he should go abroad next week to promote environmental concerns in the Soviet Union—matters over which he has no responsibility—while he does not take the opportunity to promote environmental concerns this week during the Electricity Bill debates, a matter for which he is directly responsible. It occurred to me that perhaps he was not acting so much in his capacity as the present Secretary of State for Energy, but in the capacity of a future head of the Department of Trade and Industry—a position he desires to occupy in future. Perhaps we will find out about that later.
The Bill is the most important single measure touching on the environment that we shall debate this Session, yet virtually nothing in it provides even the mildest encouragement to energy conservation, which is the biggest contribution to meeting concern about the environment that we can make. The new clause sets the Government a fundamental test of their sincerity. Is green just the colour of the Prime Minister's rhetoric—a passing flag of convenience to protect her in dangerous political waters—or is she prepared to match words with action and to stand up to the industry's Nested interests? So far, from the evidence in the Bill, the answer is a resounding no.
Every amendment promoting vigorous action to conserve energy—they numbered about 30 in Committee


—has been defeated. Instead, we have a derisory and pathetic response of such inadequacy that it casts doubt upon the commitment of those who make it. We debate energy conservation against the background of a Select Committee report on privatisation that wanted the regulator to require public electricity suppliers to come forward with energy conservation schemes. We debate it against the background also of our European obligations to promote energy conservation. However, clause 3, which lists the director general's primary duties, does not include energy conservation or efficiency. They are only mentioned as a secondary duty, subject to the primary duties, in subsection (3). The Bill contains nothing specific.
If one examines the licences that will govern both the public electricity suppliers and the generators, one finds an alarming state of affairs. All that is said in specific terms about energy efficiency in relation to the area boards that will supply electricity appears in condition 18 on page 83 of the draft licence. Licensees—the area boards—will be obliged to prepare a statement of general information about electricity efficiency
and make a copy of such statement available for inspection by members of the public at each of the relevant premises during normal working hours.
The notion that that is an adequate contribution to energy efficiency is laughable. However, we find that in the terms of the licence for those generating electricity—the Secretary of State or his hon. Friend the Minister will advise me if I am wrong—there is not one single specific duty in relation to energy conservation. It is scarcely any wonder that the Bill's existing provisions have provoked the ridicule of every serious environmental lobby group.
The one argument that is not available to the Government is that energy conservation does not matter. It is not disputed that energy conservation is important. The question is how best to promote it. The Government fail in terms not only of the test that we set them but of the test that they set themselves. That is of a piece in the policy of the Government, who cut the budget of the Energy Efficiency Office, ceased to allow home insulation grants, and scrapped industrial energy schemes. Soon, all that will be left is a massive television advertising campaign—the usual substitution of style for substance that has become the Government's hallmark.
It is vital that action is taken in respect of the greenhouse effect, for example, which may be small in its terms of global impact but is still of importance in relation to the electricity industry's emissions. Also, acid rain has been established as an environmental problem. What is unbelievably depressing about the Government's response is that they see in the evidence about greenhouse gases or acid rain, not an opportunity to promote environmental concern but a chance to make the case for nuclear power.
Those environmental hazards first came dramatically to public notice last year, although many people had known about them for a long time. The Prime Minister, in an interview in The Times, commented:
Had we gone the way of France and got 60 per cent. of our electricity from nuclear power, we should not have environmental problems.
That statement is about as bold as it is possible to imagine.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State will give the

House the benefit of his views on that remark, but I can guess his views on the statement made subsequently by the Secretary of State for the Environment, who commented:
There is absolutely no doubt that if we want to arrest the greenhouse effect we should concentrate, like the French, on a massive increase in nuclear generating capacity.
It need only be said that not only is such utterly impracticable—as to swap from coal to nuclear would mean building nuclear power stations at a rate that not even Lord Marshall foresees—but radioactive waste is itself a major environmental problem and one for which we have no easy answer at present. When people learned from television that nuclear reactors must be left for 100 years before final decommissioning takes place, it provided them with a considerable education in the environmental implications of nuclear power.
Even on the most optimistic forecasts, the demand for energy conservation will rise—at least in the short term. We are talking not about reducing that demand but rather how to reduce or contain an increase. That re-emphasises points that we made in Committee about the desirability of ensuring that before power stations of whatever type are built, it should first be ascertained whether it will not be more cost-effective—quite apart from environmental considerations—to put more money into energy conservation and less into new build. Under the proposed new clause, that aspect is one that the director general could consider. That is done in the United States and in Norway with considerable success, and it is difficult to understand why such planning should not be adopted in this country.
The amendment does not stop there. It would ensure that we promote not only energy conservation but environmentally clean technology. Later, we shall debate the subject of combined heat and power. At this point, I wish to raise a specific point concerning the future of the fluidised bed combustion plant at Grimethorpe, which is a subject dear to the hearts of many of my hon. Friends.
I understand from the Financial Times that a director of British Coal who appeared before the Energy Select Committee yesterday morning said that that project provides an opportunity to burn coal in an environmentally beneficial way, but that it is at risk because of the Government's refusal to come up with what is, by comparison to the sums put into the nuclear power industry, a small amount of money. He said that £11 million is still wanted, but believes that the Government will not make that commitment. In debating the new clause, it is entirely appropriate to ask the Government to make that commitment, and to ask what are their intentions in respect of a project that has widespread support and shows that the industry is prepared to take seriously its environmental responsibilities.
Earlier this week, four environmental groups—all of which have a long-standing commitment in the environmental field and are well respected—jointly urged support from all political parties for the amendments and new clauses that we propose. They mentioned many ways in which energy could be used more efficiently and to reduce environmental difficulties. Those proposals are at least worth examining. History has taught us that there is no possibility of encouraging a greater measure of concern for the environment unless one is prepared to interfere with the vested interests that wish to carry on burning energy in the least efficient way, which does not put care for the environment at the top of the agenda. If we are


serious about promoting environmental concern, it must mean intervening in the market place to do so. That is what the new clause would do.
Without obligations on the electricity supply industry and without legislative duties—in other words, without interference in the market place—the degree of care for the environment that we desire is simply highly unlikely to happen. If the House takes the environment seriously, that interference should not happen at the whim of industry but by the will of the people. If the Secretary of State was prepared to set aside market forces to protect the nuclear industry yesterday, why does he not set them aside today —this time for the good of the environment and the country as a whole?

Mr. A. J. Beith: My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) may seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to discuss some clauses dealing with the conservation aspects of the amendments.
I shall refer to new clause 17, as Mr. Speaker said I could, because another version of the new clause was selected with this group yesterday. It is about rural areas. People in rural areas have a particular reason to be concerned about the conservation and energy efficiency aspects of the Bill. It is in rural areas that green field sites are sought for the new power stations which would not be needed if proper energy efficiency and conservation were applied. The race to find, buy and use green field sites could be halted if we had proper conservation and an energy efficiency-based policy were followed. Therefore, one of the first interests of rural areas must be that part of the new clauses.
Several other aspects must also be considered. One is the duty to supply, on which I dwelt yesterday. The weakness of the duty to supply aspects is only one of the problems that the Bill presents for rural areas. That is why my hon. Friends sought to incorporate into the Bill two deputy directors of supply, one to deal with conservation and one to deal with the particular problems of rural areas.
There are a series of such problems. One involves the compulsory purchase powers in the Bill. For example, the National Farmers Union remains deeply concerned that the private electricity companies will have compulsory purchase powers which have previously belonged only to a Government body—a nationalised industry—and will therefore be able to take from agricultural use land which is of agricultural and environmental importance in the same way that a public body was able to do. Draconian powers are to be in the hands of private companies. That is another matter in which a deputy director general concerned with rural affairs would have a role to play.
The Bill's most alarming feature for rural areas is that the electricity supply companies could choose to impose a higher tariff on rural customers than on urban customers. That provision would allow a private company a power which no public company would surely ever have dared to use. That is why it has not been an issue in the history of nationalised electricity.
Within the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board area, the common tariff—the right of every customer to pay the same tariff, regardless of where in the board's area he or she lives—has been enshrined in legislation and will continue to be so enshrined in the area of the north of

Scotland electricity supply company. But in the rest of Scotland and in the whole of England and Wales, it will be open to the new electricity supply companies to choose to charge their rural customers more than their urban customers. It is common for commercial organisations to say, "It is costing us a lot of money to deliver to little villages and to go to the heads of valleys and supply goods. Therefore, we will impose a surcharge and charge them at a higher rate." That cannot be an improvement for such a basic commodity as electricity, which has hitherto—certainly since the war—been supplied by public service bodies.
The chairmen-designate of the new companies have given indications that they might not choose to use that power for the first five years after privatization—but five years only, and not beyond that time. The very way in which they have given such Indications suggests that they will seek to use that power. There was a trial run of the problem in the Isles of Scilly. From the consumers' point of view the outcome was rather satisfactory. At the end of the day, primarily because of EEC involvement in the provision of a new electricity service on the Isles of Scilly, it was determined that a differential tariff could not be required of consumers there. They have the guarantee that they will pay the same as consumers in the rest of their board area. We have the EEC to thank for that, not any provision in existing legislation or in the Bill.
Hon. Members should think of what the companies can do now. The company supplying north Wales could decide to charge Anglesey at a higher rate than the rest of its consumers. North Yorkshire consumers could be charged at a higher rate than the rest of the Yorkshire consumers. The company in the north-east could decide to charge Northumberland at a higher rate than Tyneside. The appropriate board could charge rural Devon at a higher rate than the city of Plymouth. Such practices could be tempting if companies want to load higher charges on rural consumers who have fewer alternatives. Those consumers will not have access to gas as an alternative fuel for cooking, for example, and therefore will not be able to offset any higher costs by turning to alternative fuel.
These are grave prospects for abuse of a monopoly at the expense of rural consumers, in the absence of any protection provision. They were not seriously considered by the Government when the legislation was framed. That is why we sought in Committee to build in a right or guarantee that there should be a common tariff and that there should be no discrimination against any geographical area. The Government failed to accept that. We said that there should at least be someone in the controlling mechanism—a deputy director, for example—with a specific responsibility to prevent boards discriminating against their customers on the ground that they live in a rural area. I fear that that will happen unless some such provision is incorporated in the Bill. That is why we will continue to press in the House and through our friends in another place that rural areas should be much better safeguarded than they are at present.

Mr. Peter Hardy: (Wentworth) Unfortunately and sadly, I must make an extremely critical speech about Her Majesty's Government's record in energy conservation and the environment. Last night, the Secretary of State said that the Government's approach was one of diversity to maintain security of supply. If the Government were keen to enhance the security of supply, they would not


have such an appalling record in energy efficiency and energy conservation. When I made that point last night, the Minister looked shocked. He should not be shocked. He should be aware that Britain's record is deplorably below those of other advanced European industrial countries. That is sad. We would not have needed a nuclear ring fence. We would not have had nuclear power stations if the Government had wanted to avoid the massive capital costs of such installations. It would have been cheaper to save that energy through proper energy efficiency.
I am sure that the Minister has seen the claim by conservation bodies that we could halve the present use of electricity by using new kinds of light bulbs, save three quarters of the amount of electricity consumed by freezers and refrigerators if modern technology were applied, and save two thirds of the electricity consumed by washing machines, not by having dirtier clothes, but by having modern, technologically advanced energy-saving electric washers. We could certainly reduce the energy required to warm our homes by at least 20 per cent. if we reached the standards which are the average in western Europe, rather than lagging so far behind. We have been in that position for a long time and the Government's response to the case for energy conservation has been to adopt the policy that, if the price is high enough, the brutal effect will be to compel people to insulate, conserve and act with energy efficiency in mind.
A little while ago, I was advised by some of the groups that do splendid work in seeking to advance those most in need in society of the comparative position of a four-bedroomed detached house occupied by people in comfortable circumstances who invested in conservation, insulation and energy efficiency, who had the maximum possible insulation and the most efficient and effective forms of heating. They could maintain their four-bedroomed detached home at a comfortable heating level for less than the cost incurred by many hundreds of thousands of elderly people living in little, old, drafty houses and having to spend a fortune on electricity for unsuitable appliances. From an economic as well as a social standpoint, the case for a much higher priority for energy conservation should have been adopted long ago.
I said that I would be critical of the Government and I hope that the Government will accept that their record on conservation and efficiency deserves condemnation. An even greater criticism should fall on the Government if the work of such people as my hon. Friends the Members for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett), in whose constituency lies the Grimethorpe research centre, is ignored and the centre is allowed to founder simply because the Government are not prepared to support it. The Government should understand that Britain's record in research and development is deteriorating and that this is one area in which international advances and economic benefit could accrue. I hope that the comments already made about Grimethorpe will lead to a more favourable decision, especially if the Minister takes note of the work of the Select Committee on Energy.
I may be more critical of the Government than ever in regard to the environment. The Minister heard me say in Committee—and it is worth repeating—that the words of

schedule 9 in regard to the "preservation of amenity" sound attractive. They were attractive, forward-looking words of high quality prose and literary merit in 1957.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): I am not used to hearing praise from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hardy: I am delighted that the Secretary of State is taking credit for the words of 1957. Unfortunately, whereas those words were commendable in 1957, the record of Governments in the 32 years that have elapsed since suggest that we need a rather different approach. A mere reliance on words that have already been frequently ignored and which receive a deteriorating priority is not acceptable. The Government have included the words in a series of pieces of legislation far too frequently, but having used the words, far too frequently no relevant action has followed. I am reminded of the Government's approach in a series of ways. As the Secretary of State knows, I could continue at length in giving illustrations, but I shall illustrate my point by the examples of one current event and of another that took place a little while ago.
On 16 January 1989, as the Secretary of State knows —I am sorry if some of my hon. Friends have heard this before, but I do not apologise if Conservative Members have heard it before—at the centenary of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Prime Minister, dressed in green, made a splendid speech. In terms of literary quality, her words were as good as those in schedule 9. The Prime Minister advised us to protect our natural heritage and she expressed her disapproval of the fact that 120,000 miles of hedgerow had been destroyed in the past four decades. I was delighted to hear her speech. That afternoon, I presented the Hedgerows Bill and I thought that the Prime Minister's words would allow my Bill to succeed, but it failed because the Government blocked it. I wrote to the Prime Minister because she was supposed to have been converted to the cause of greenery and the environment. I shall not bore the House by reading out her letter, but I was somewhat annoyed when I read that she believed that other matters should be considered as well as conservation.
5.45 pm
The second incident is, perhaps more venal. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) was drawn in a high place in the ballot for private Members' Bills. He tabled a Bill in 1985 of considerable environmental relevance—the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill, which had six particular points in it. The Government disfigured the Bill by leaving only one of the points in substance when the Bill went to the other place. I mention that because when the Bill was considered in the other place, the five points that the House had removed from the Bill as a result of Government pressure were restored. The Government were then left in a bit of a dilemma. They had to decide what to do about the five Lords amendments. Grudgingly, belatedly and at the last minute, following the most concentrated telephone lobbying the House of Commons has ever experienced, the Government decided the following day that they would not oppose those Lords amendments. What was nasty was that later that day, the appropriate Department issued a press statement claiming the credit for my hon. Friend's Bill and describing it as a Government measure.
No doubt the Government advance that Bill as evidence of the fact that from time to time they have paid attention to the words included in schedule 9, but those words, lifted from the Electricity Act 1957, have been far too frequently ignored. They have been too widely disregarded by this Administration during the past decade for us to have any trust or faith that the words in schedule 9 will receive a response. That is why environmental organisations throughout the country are deeply worried about the Bill. They believe that when the Government finally complete the privatisation of the industry —and the transactions for the water industry give us no cause for relief of that anxiety—perhaps substantially into the ownership of those who have no interest in these islands, the environmental consequences may be tragic. That is why I hope that the amendments will be accepted. If they are not accepted here, I hope that they—or similar amendments—will be passed in the other place. I hope that when the Bill returns to this House, suitably amended, the House will ensure that it provides better arrangements and safeguards to assist the causes of energy conservation and the environment.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Since last September, we have become familiar with the Prime Minister's conversion to green, environmental issues and to beliefs that we did not realise she had ever had over the previous 10 years. The privatisation of the electricity industry was an opportunity for her to put some of those sentiments into legislation, because in dealing with the electricity industry, we are dealing with Britain's largest polluter. In terms of air pollution, it has no rival. It is responsible for about half our total air pollution, 73 per cent. of sulphur dioxide emissions, 35 per cent. of nitrogen oxide emissions and 40 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions.
Surely the Bill could have given the Government the opportunity to legislate to improve their environmental record? However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said, there is nothing in the Bill on environmental protection, conservation, energy efficiency or cutting pollution. There is some access to information via leaflets that may be distributed, but we already have that because information on insulation comes with our electricity bills. If ever there was an opportunity to try to do something about conservation and pollution, the Bill was it.
In the past 20 years, conservation has had far too little attention paid to it by both this Government and their predecessors. However, conservation has a critical role in energy policy. It can contribute as much as oil, gas or coal and certainly far more than nuclear power to our energy needs. In that sense, it is properly described as potentially the "fifth fuel".
Over the next 20 or 30 years planning is vital because if we adopt strict policies on energy conservation it will be possible to double our living standards without any growth in energy demand.
Despite the Government's green claims, their record speaks otherwise. In the past few years the budget of the Energy Efficiency Office has been cut from £25 million to £12 million, giving the lie to the Prime Minister's green claims. In new clause 7 on energy conservation, we are asking the regulator to take measures to instruct the

distribution companies to improve energy efficiency. We should like an annual energy audit and annual records kept to show how efficiency is being improved.
In Committee, we debated at length the idea of least-cost planning, which has been adopted in the United States. Instead of building more and more new power stations, it would be better to invest that money in home and factory insulation, in combined heat and power or simply in demand management to iron out the peaks in the demand for electricity in the evening and during the day. If we did so, we would not need such capacity to meet the demand.
Least-cost planning is very much in the consumers' interest. It is designed for consumers because ultimately it means that the electricity produced is cheaper. It aims for the lowest cost of electricity. Rather than consumers paying for the four PWRs or for new power stations, they would be paying for insulation, which is much more efficient. Such measures could be adopted in this country and new clause 7 would help the regulator to acquire those powers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) talked about energy efficiency and appliances, such as washing machines, refrigerators and television sets. He also mentioned light bulbs. It is possible to produce such things with between two and four times their present efficiency. In that context, one danger of the Bill is that the research work carried out by the CEGB may be cut. Therefore, in new clause 7 we are asking that the regulator be given powers so that conservation and energy efficiency become part of the role of the privatised industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth also said that we have a sort of conservation policy at the moment. It is conservation by price. It means that in the winter pensioners, who often live in draughty houses, cannot afford to switch on two bars of their electric fires. That social problem applies especially to the poor, the elderly and families. It is a cruel kind of conservation.
Since 1973 energy efficiency has improved in the advanced countries by 20 per cent. I hasten to add that Britain is pretty well at the bottom of that league. Far more is possible, and our new clause asks that there should be action.
New clause 14 refers to pollution and environmental protection. Opposition Members acknowledge that coal is dirty. We realise that sulphur and nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide are all by-products of coal combustion. However, they need to be and can be tackled. Sulphur dioxide and acid rain pose a serious problem. Acid rain is killing our trees and affecting water supplies and the tributaries of rivers in upland areas. The drinking water in my constituency has a high aluminium level, often in excess of the EEC limit, simply because of the problem of acid rain.
The Government's record on acid rain is appalling. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) was in Japan a few weeks ago and visited a power station that was built in 1974 and which had flue gas desulphurisation installed then. That was about 20 years ago but not one of our power stations has such FGD equipment. The Government did not recognise acid rain as a problem until 1986 and it was only then that they started to take some action. Under the present programme, none of our power stations will be cleaned up until 1997. We are dragging our feet. For years the Government refused to join the "30 per cent. club", and a 30 per cent. reduction


by 1997 is now completely out of the question. The Government have agreed to a European Community directive to cut sulphur oxide by 60 per cent. by the year 2003, but that is now impossible under the Government's present policies. Nothing in the Bill will help to achieve those targets.
We believe that part of the regulator's role should be to monitor the amount of sulphur oxide, nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide that is emitted year by year. The regulator should set targets for reduction in line with those of the EEC directives.
Clean combustion technology and the work of Grimethorpe was commented on earlier. It is appalling that the Government are placing such important long-term research in jeopardy. Grimethorpe is the power station of the 1990s. It is the way to produce electricity in the next century, yet under this Government that programme is threatened. I hope that we shall receive some assurance today from the Secretary of State that the money that is needed will be found. It is a small amount —£11 million—which is pathetic when compared to the money that has been given to the fast breeder reactor programmes and to nuclear power in general over the years.
There can be no doubt about the greenhouse effect being the most intractable environmental problem. I read in the New Scientist last week that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has now passed the 350 parts per million barrier. In was 290 ppm, but it is now 350 ppm. It has increased by 20 per cent. during the past century and it is increasing at the rate of an extra 1 per cent. per year. That could lead to global warming and to the climatic effects that we have all heard about. Exactly what may be implied there is not very clear, but it would be prudent to take action now on the greenhouse effect.
At last year's United Nations conference in Toronto on the global climate, Britain agreed with other countries to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. over the next 15 years, but we saw in Committee that the Central Electricity Generating Board projects an increase of generation of 25 per cent. over the same period and of 60 per cent. over the next 50 years. So our assurances and our promises to that conference were not worth the paper that they were written on.
The only way to cut those CO2 emissions is by conservation. Nuclear power stations are almost irrelevant. Conservation is the answer, and that is where the two Opposition new clauses tie together.
I end by quoting something said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield—it deserves to be a "quote of the week". In a recent article he said that in the 1970s conservation was about saving money; now it is about saving the environment.

6 pm

Dr. Kim Howells: It has been a joy to watch the greening of the Government over the past 12 months. I remember that in July 1984 the Government's delegate to an international acid rain conference in Munich, the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), did not even bother to turn up to present the United Kingdom's case and had one of his civil servants read out Britain's excuse for not joining the "30 per cent.

club", despite the fact that the Government were well aware of the outrage felt at the time by Scandinavian countries at having to suffer the noxious and destructive effects of United Kingdom sulphur emissions. At the time, Britain's most notorious trained scientist, the Prime Minister, had decided that the evidence on acid rain was inconclusive and had forbidden right hon. and hon. Conservative Members to support any shade of green—although rumours abounded that a few were secretly wearing green underpants as a gesture of concern for the environment. They are now retrofitting green garments at a far faster rate than they are retrofitting flue gas desulphurisation equipment in the nation's power stations.
Nevertheless, I welcome the plan to retrofit 6,000 MW of coal-fired capacity over the next eight years. I also welcome the plan to install low nitrous oxide burners at the CEGB's 12 largest power stations over the same period. But I do not welcome the Government's continuing refusal to sign the Helsinki protocol to undertake the reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions or their trans-boundary fluxes by 30 per cent. from 1980 levels by 1993.
The Government's new air quality standards for nitrous oxides and sulphur dioxides comply with EC directives and are most welcome but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) has already said, the directed levels are unlikely to be reached by the dates set.
Retrofitting is one answer, but it has limited application and it is very expensive. What is needed is a general transformation in our attitudes towards the fuelling and production of electricity in this country, one which posits an altogether more imaginative and environmentally sensitive approach than is encapsulated in the present Bill. I am not trying to defend the status quo. The attitudes towards energy production of virtually all the interested parties over the past decade have been partisan, unimaginative and generally governed by a notion that energy conservation and efficiency, and environmentalism as a whole, meant job losses, additional expense and consequent political unpopularity.
The Bill strengthens rather than weakens that notion, and I commend new clause 14 as a measure which may encourage a different attitude towards the fuelling and production of electricity. The development and application of the kinds of energy technology already mentioned by my right hon. and hon. Friends might be encouraged—for example, the various renewable sources of energy, the greater efficiency of existing technologies, and moves towards the proper uses of materials with which we can make better use of our energy.
If we adopt this new attitude we shall see that environmentalism and efficiency will mean more jobs, not fewer. They may be different jobs, and that is a problem that the trade union movement must take on board, no question about it. If we support those new clauses we shall be doing a very constructive thing in that we shall not merely force the Government to act upon some of their protestations about being a green party, a party that cares about the environment; we shall encourage all levels of society to adopt a much more imaginative and realistic approach to the great problems of fuel production, electricity generation and the protection of the environment.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I have tabled an amendment calling for a deputy director of conservation.
It is my view and that of my colleagues that that issue ought to be at the heart of the debate about the Bill. It is very unfortunate that we have been diverted into a debate about nuclear power which, although interesting, has allowed the Government to avoid confronting the fundamental issue of how we can use energy much more efficiently.
Our record of energy efficiency is extremely poor compared with that of our competitors. It is difficult to understand why, given the number of times that Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box and claimed that they are in favour of conservation, we have fallen so far short of the objectives declared by the Government to be both achievable and desirable and to which they are committed. It is something that we really ought to take on board.
For example, in 1986 the Prime Minister opened the Milton Keynes energy week. She said that Britain's total fuel bill was £35 billion, which could be reduced by £7 billion. The Secretary of State for Energy tells us that the energy bill is £39 billion and could be reduced by £8 billion. In other words, nothing has changed except the figures, which have, in both cases, gone up. We have failed to achieve any significant move towards the reduction in energy use that the Government say they want to achieve and which they believe can be achieved.
I suspect that the reason is that the Government believe that it is not their responsibility, that the market will solve the problem and that it is up to everyone except the Government to take appropriate action. Given that this is one area where the Government and my colleagues and I share common ground, the Bill should have been seen as an opportunity. The common ground that we share is a complete dissatisfaction with the way in which the industry has been run over the past 10 or 15 years. It has been centralised and inefficient. It has over-invested. It has been generation-biased in the extreme; its response to forecasts of rising demand has been the desire to build more power stations instead of asking how it can ensure that the demand can be met with the existing capacity, because the technology exists to do that.
The irony—I may be giving the Minister the lead to his reply—is that it is cost-effective to invest less money to achieve greater profitability. It is true—I have some common ground with the Government on this—that the industry in the public sector has manifestly failed to grasp that issue, but I part company with the Government in that I believe that they can and should do a great deal more, and that the Director General of Electricity Supply should have been—and would be, if our amendments were carried—charged with a specific responsibility to promote energy conservation.
Significant benefits will flow from energy conservation. The first benefit is environmental. According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, investment in energy efficiency and conservation is seven times more effective than nuclear power in abating global warming. I do not believe that the Government will get very much mileage from suggesting that their nuclear programme is a contribution to dealing with the greenhouse effect. It is irrelevant. The programme, as promoted in the current state of the electricity supply industry and as endorsed by the Government as their future direction, will, in fact, lead to a 20 per cent. increase in carbon dioxide emissions from the United Kingdom by the end of the century.
It has already been stated that the original reasons for introducing energy conservation were financial and were

connected with the oil crisis of the 1970s. At the risk of boring the House, I would point out that I wrote a pamphlet in 1979 in which I stated the environmental benefits and urged action to be taken. I regret to say that nothing has changed. My pamphlet is just as relevant today. The problems are even more severe, and no action has been taken to confront the issue.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: It has been recycled.

Mr. Bruce: It has not even been recycled. It has been shelved.
The second benefit from energy conservation is economic. It would lead to a cheaper unit cost of energy. That would be beneficial to industry and to our ability to compete in world markets. I hope that the Government would regard that as desirable, because at present we are not competing very successfully as a trading nation. That is possibly because we use energy substantially more inefficiently than our major competitors, Japan and West Germany. The Japanese use half as much energy per capita as we do and the primary energy consumption ratio to GDP in West Germany is half that of the United Kingdom. Therefore, effectively, it is twice as good as we are at using energy efficiently, which possibly explains why it is twice as good as we are at securing shares in world markets.
That benefit also has a social relevance as it helps to deal with the problem of fuel poverty. I worked for a number of years for a Norwegian-based oil and gas industry publishing company, and travelled to Norway fairly regularly during that time. I found it extraordinary that the issues of fuel poverty and condensation which are so alive in this country are almost unknown in Scandinavia. That is, first, because the Scandinavians have learnt that they live in a climate that requires a particular standard of building. They build to meet the climatic conditions and, therefore, they have houses that are fundamentally efficient and warm and do not suffer from condensation. Secondly, they ensure that their energy is relatively competitive. They have, of course, for a long time had the advantage of hydro-power, which has obviously been an additional helpful factor.
Perhaps the even more extraordinary situation is that investment in energy conservation would actually make money. The science policy research unit has estimated that every pound spent on conservation—this is not an airy-fairy proposition, but is based on spending money on existing conservation methods, which are specific and known—would save 38 kW, would cut carbon dioxide discharges by 42g and would save customers £1·90 each. Will the Secretary of State tell us what other investment in the United Kingdom could give a 90 per cent. rate of return? He must address himself to why we do not manage to achieve the target savings for which he has said that we should be aiming.
6.15 pm
The Association for the Conservation of Energy has recently carried out an analysis of some fairly simple measures that would produce significant benefits. It has assessed that simply by ensuring that lights, old fridges and freezers are replaced with the state of the art, best available technology, demand for electricity would be cut by 12 per cent. That means that it would cut the demand for electricity by the equivalent of four and a half Hinkley Cs.


That reinforces the point that I have often made—that, if the electricity supply industry had any imagination, it would recognise that instead of spending money on wasteful public inquiries and the building of unnecessary power stations, it should spend that money on conservation, and thereby improve the profitability of the industry as well as reducing the cost to its consumers. That should be at the heart of the post-privatisation regulatory system.
In anticipation of the Minister's response—although I hope that I am wrong—I must say that it is not good enough to say that the figures I have quoted are so dramatic that once the industry is privatised the problem will solve itself. All the evidence from other countries shows that there must be a specific Government momentum behind the problem in order to solve it.
I know that the Minister is not enthusiastic about all its aspects, but the regime that has operated for a number of years in the state of California for promoting conservation and alternative energy required legislation, funding and tax benefits to ensure that it was stimulated. Once there was that framework, people were prepared to make investments because they were required to do so. They were astonished to find that under the regulation system that this Government so often denounce they were able to make greater profits than they would if they had pursued their desires in a free market, which was their initial wish.
The other sources of benefit are closer to home. The Select Committee on the Environment, when considering especially the problems of air pollution, stated:
However, if the world wants light, heat and energy in constant and increasing supply, the choice might resolve itself between a source which is deliberately and constantly poisoning the atmosphere and one whose misadventure would have catastrophic global results"—
that is obviously between fossil fuels and nuclear power—
but an alternative would be energy conservation and reduction in demand".
Energy conservation and improved energy efficiency is the absolute key to dealing substantially and significantly with the problems facing the energy industry of high costs and great environmental concern.
The proposals put forward by a variety of organisations have all reinforced that message. What should concern the Government now is how they will retain credibility as a Government who are putting forward the privatisation of electricity as an environmentally and economically beneficial measure, when all the indications are that without substantial action by the director general prices will rise, our competitive relationship with other countries will continue to deteriorate and the output of carbon dioxide and the aggravation of the greenhouse effect will continue to escalate between now and the end of the century.
I am led to believe that the Prime Minister is specifically concerned about the greenhouse effect and that that is her major environmental concern. Unlike many sceptics and cynics I welcome her conversion and believe it to be sincere. I believe that she has come to terms with the problems. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes. But I do not believe that she has appreciated that a commitment to deal with the greenhouse effect and the associated environmental problems is, unfortunately, incompatible with Thatcherism. When the Prime Minister discovers her dilemma I suspect that she may suffer a severe attack of

schizophrenia. The one great thing about schizophrenia is that it reduces the patient to immobility and a little immobility on the part of the Prime Minister would, I suspect, be attractive to the majority of the country.
The market will not succeed in dealing with the environmental and economic problems of high energy costs and inefficiency energy use—that must be the duty of the regulator. The Director General of Electricity Supply —the regulator—may be correct in believing that the effective operation of the market may help to achieve a solution to the problems. He may consider that more information should be made available to people to enable them to make rational decisions which will be of economic benefit to them. If that is so, I wonder how the Government justify the reductions, and the forecasts of further reductions, in the budget of the Energy Efficiency Office. Its budget is small in any case and I believe that its role must be encouraged and intensified if we are to ensure that rational decisions are made by individuals and by companies in the private sector to take advantage of the economic benefits of investment in energy conservation. Surely the Government should do their best to make that happen.
It is not good enough to believe that market factors will determine the solutions to the problems. We need direct regulations. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) has already mentioned "least-cost" planning. The Minister will know that that terminology has been imported from the United States where it is used as part of the criteria to assess operators' plans. When an application is made to build a new power station, the question asked is whether that represents the least-cost method of meeting the required capacity that the operator wishes to provide. Almost inevitably the answer is no. Using the same or a smaller amount of money to invest in energy conservation measures always proves to be more cost effective within existing technology. In other words, every pound or dollar invested in energy conservation will yield substantially more saved units of electricity than that same pound spent on investing on new generating capacity. It is a radical concept, but it works. The Minister should tell the House why he has not adopted that method here and why he does not believe that it is a good way of ensuring that conservation becomes central to our thinking.
Earlier, I noted that the Secretary of State nodded in agreement when I expressed my dissatisfaction with the way in which CEGB has worked as a result of its centralist mechanisms. However, the right hon. Gentleman has not said—even if he believes it to be true—how the proposed privatisation will substantially change the bias towards generation. The newly privatised industry will still say that demand is rising and that, therefore, new and bigger power stations should be built. I do not believe that we need any more capacity; what we need is more variety. We need greater flexibility and smaller-scale generation. That opens up all the market opportunities about which the Secretary of State and the Minister are so enthusiastic. If we followed that course there would be a great deal more enthusiasm for a privatised electricity supply industry.
Given that privatisation will take place and that the Director General of Electricity Supply will be appointed, I hope that he will have the power to pursue developments that will lead to greater flexibility. The new clause would help to achieve that aim. Without the new clause and the associated amendments I am not convinced that the Bill will ensure that the critical issues, which should be at the


heart of the legislation, are properly addressed. Even at this late stage I urge the Minister to consider the need to amend the Bill to put conservation at the heart of it. If he does that he will put on the statute book a Bill which, however controversial it is in other ways, will advance the electricity efficiency of this country by a marked degree and which will benefit every individual and company throughout the land.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: The House will be aware that in June 1988 the Select Committee on Energy produced a report arising from the White Paper and the subsequent Bill to privatise the electricity supply industry. I appreciate that there is not much evidence to suggest that the Government take a great deal of notice of the Select Committee reports, but I believe that we should be able to rely on the Government's observations on that report. If that is so, the Secretary of State should have accepted the new clause today.
No doubt the Secretary of State will recollect what the Government said about energy efficiency in paragraph 39 of the third special report on the report from the Select Committee:
The efficiency with which the electricity industry uses fuel will significantly affect its costs, and hence its ability to compete successfully. The increase in competition which is central to the Government's proposals will provide a major incentive to the electricity companies to use fuel efficiently. The Government believes that pressure to find ways of increasing fuel efficiency to obtain competitive advantage will be an effective pressure for improving efficiency of fuel use in the industry. There will also be a general duty on the Secretaries of State and the Director to promote efficiency on the part of licence holders.
If that does not mean what new clauses 7 and 14 mean, I do not know what does. If the Government were genuine in their response to the Select Committee, what are we doing here today? The new clauses should be unnecessary as their provisions should already be a part of the Government's programme.
We have heard much about the greenhouse effect. At present the Select Committee on Energy is taking evidence about that. I wish that its report was available now, as it would provide a great deal of ammunition for this debate. The House will agree, however, that, unless such information is leaked, we must await the publication of that report.
Research and development have an important part to play in energy efficiency and the greenhouse effect. In paragraph 54 of the third special report, the Government, in response to the original report from the Select Committee, state:
The Government accepts that its role in assessing long term energy R &amp; D is an important issue. The nature of the programme overall will be determined by the inter-action of the industry's R &amp; D programme with the Government's existing policy on R &amp; D as set out in the 'Annual Review of Government Funded Research and Development'. The electricity industry has been asked to submit proposals for the organisation and implementation of research after privatisation and expects to receive these in the near future. When these have been reviewed it will be in a position to consider the appropriate role for the Government.
The Secretary of State may be in a position to tell us whether they have received that information. If so, what are the Government's views on it and what action will they take?
6.30 pm
We have recently heard much about the intentions of the Government and the Prime Minister to control the greenhouse effect. I wonder how serious those intentions are. The Secretary of State did not respond last evening to a question that I put to him about the Grimethorpe complex. He has had time to consider the question. The evidence given by Mr. Edwards of British Coal was that the Grimethorpe complex was under threat because the Government were not willing to provide £11 million for it to continue. If that is the case, how serious are the Government about efficiency and about research and development to protect the environment? Mr. Edwards told the Select Committee that if that scheme failed, very little other research and development would take place on the technology for sulphurised beds. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is talking to his colleague. I hope that he is listening to what I am saying because it is very important.
The Government's case is that nuclear energy is much cleaner. They have also said time and again that they believe that coal has a great part to play in the future of British energy. If they are serious about that, why will they not put money into research and development? If they are not serious about it, they should say so. If they do not want to put money into R and D, that may be why they are not keen to support the new clauses.
I hope that the Secretary of State will attempt to convince people that the Government are serious about protecting the environment and about coal having a part to play in the future of British energy. Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that the Grimethorpe complex will be funded and that research will continue there?

Mr. Malcolm Moss: Energy efficiency makes economic and environmental sense. I do not think that proposition is opposed by Members on either side of the House. But all energy sources have an environmental impact. Burning fossil fuels contributes not only to acid rain but to the greenhouse effect. Nuclear energy produces radioactive waste which needs to be disposed of safely. The solution is not to transfer to renewables because to produce energy from wind farms we would need thousands of acres, and tidal barrages have detrimental environmental effects of their own.
The question is: how best can we achieve energy savings? Should we do it via the amendments under discussion, with their emphasis on a more direct and hands-on procedure, with more direction and regulation by the director general? It is ironic that at a time when the Government are seeking to remove themselves from day-to-day involvement in the running of the electricity supply industry we should be discussing amendments which would give future Governments the potential to get their hands back on the industry. Or should we achieve energy savings through the operation of a free market within the framework set out in the Bill for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry?
Whichever way we go, there are things that the Government can and should do. They have some influence, although sometimes one doubts it, with local authorities. I understand that the Audit Commission is to re-examine how local authorities in England and Wales manage energy in their own properties. The new initiative


follows an earlier study completed in 1985 which established that at least £130 million could be knocked off fuel bills. However, an initial survey of progress undertaken last year suggested that only a tiny proportion of the anticipated savings is being achieved. The survey found that only about 13 per cent. of the investment opportunities have yet been taken up on the energy management side.
The Government should also consider their own buildings. Of all public sector buildings, 50 per cent. or more are occupied by Government Departments. When the Back-Bench committee on energy invited a consultant from an energy management firm to talk to it, he pointed out that whenever his firm was called in on a consultancy basis to examine Government buildings and spoke to the Property Services Agency, it got short shrift and got absolutely nowhere. The Government have a direct responsibility to make sure that the doors are open to proper consultancy so that savings may be achieved.
What is happening in industry? To hear the CBI talk, one would think that putting up prices this year would have a serious effect on the performance of industry. A survey last year, I think, by March Consultants in the north-west region showed that savings of 30 per cent. or more could be achieved by business and commerce. Yet very little was done. Even when showed the possibilities of energy saving, efficiency and conservation, few firms bothered to invest the money necessary or to employ within their structure people who could deal directly with the problem.
Where will energy efficiency fit within the newly privatised electricity supply industry? Surprisingly, some interesting information has come to light recently. Only the other week Mr. Malpas, the chairman-designate of PowerGen, spoke to a meeting of the Fellowship of Engineers. He said that most national energy policies focused too much on how energy was generated and far too little on the concern for its use. When challenged as to how that view fitted in with making profits in a privatised electricity supply sector, he said that PowerGen was considering taking a leaf out of the books of many American power companies and positively assisting the introduction of incentive schemes to promote the installation of energy-saving measures.
If we turn to the American position, evidence was given at the Hinkley inquiry by a representative of an American company, the Bonneville Power Administration, which supplies electricity to five states in north-west America. The company indicated that it was spending some $700 million to help its consumers to reduce energy wastage. It said that within five years cumulative savings had already reached 220 MW, which is equivalent to a small coal-fired station, and predicted that by 2010 the programme would have saved 2,750 MW of electricity. When challenged, its spokesman said:
We are in business. You don't spend $700 million on a passionate enthusiasm. You do it as a good business investment.
PowerGen is to be a privatised company under the Bill. The Bonneville Power Administration is not a public company; it is not state-owned but is a private company. These two examples indicate how in future the privatized

electricity supply industry in this country could make a positive contribution to energy conservation and efficiency.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is it not a fact that the Bonneville Power Administration was set up originally as a state corporation? Were it not for the requirements of the Public Utility Commissioners, who refused permission for the building of power stations, it would not have embarked on that course. What the hon. Gentleman says is right; having embarked on it, it found that it was profitable.

Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making those points. Whatever the incentive for looking into energy efficiency, the proof of the pudding is that it has been achieved and it is possible for that to happen here as well.
The Government's budget for the Energy Efficiency Office has been challenged by Opposition Members. It is not just the size of the budget that is important; the effectiveness of the spending is paramount. We should consider energy efficiency as our fifth fuel, which has significant environmental advantages. The new structure of the electricity supply industry will encourage that in three main ways.
First, one of the director general's main regulatory responsibilities is to promote energy efficiency. Secondly, the area boards, in competition with British Gas, will have a direct interest in keeping down their customers' bills. They will also, in competition with British Gas, encourage people to switch to electricity which, for heating, will be far more cost-effective if the householder is, at the same time, encouraged to take energy efficiency measures. In discussions which I have had with them, area board chairmen see this as a positive contribution which will also help overall market penetration. Thirdly, competition in electricity generation will ensure efficiency in the use of fuels.
These amendments are irrelevant. Adequate energy efficiency measures are already well taken care of in the Bill.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Unlike the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), I am not convinced of the Prime Minister's commitment to green issues. For the Prime Minister, green issues seem to go along with the green outfits that she takes out of her wardrobe and wears on a number of public occasions. I have been to meetings where the Prime Minister has made a speech that is fine in terms of conservation and ecological issues. Unfortunately, when I come to the House, I find, along with many other colleagues, that some of the issues which she so warmly supported at public meetings are voted down by the Government or not given the Government support that they should receive. That directly contradicts the policies that she sets outside the House.
The Bill is one example of that. The conservatioin of energy must be crucial to any country, not only in reducing the greenhouse effect—a major need which has been identified by the Prime Minister—but in cutting costs, both for domestic and industrial users.
We all know of the damage caused to the environment by acid rain and the greenhouse effect, but, in a modern technological society, we also accept that we must have power. The CEGB forecasts that there may be a 25 per cent. increase in demand in energy in the coming years.
Rather than simply ploughing ahead to meet that demand with more power stations—whether nuclear or coal—we should try to absorb that demand by greater energy efficiency.
In contrast to the argument put forward by some Government Members, nuclear power is not the answer to meet the increase in demand. It has advantages, but it also creates a different sort of pollution—in particlar, radioactivity. High environmental costs are also involved in dismantling the nuclear power stations and handling the waste that they produce. Therefore, nuclear power stations will not cut down pollution.
The union that I represent has members in both heavy industry, including steel, and rural areas. The steel industry has made great strides towards reducing its energy consumption, which has helped to return steel to profitability. However, not all companies have taken the same progressive line and invested in energy use. Of course, it could be argued that it is in the steel industry's interests because it makes savings by reduced power bills. Nevertheless, many industries which are not under the same kind of pressure to save money could pass on the savings in energy costs to their customers. The new clause would give the director general a role in encouraging the necessary energy conservation.
Another concern of mine, which has been echoed in the Bill, is the differential rates in rural areas. If new power companies are allowed to charge differential rates rather than concentrate on efficiency and energy saving, they will take that option. Therefore, housing estates built in rural areas to meet housing demand could face extra charges and industries set up in rural areas to provide jobs could also face a penalty.
6.45 pm
The Secretary of State will be aware that environmental organisations strongly support this batch of amendments. They call not only for energy efficiency and conservation programmes—which, if all the various conservation schemes were implemented, could cut the peak demand by 70 per cent. —but for target-led reductions in the pollutants of the electricity generating industry, particularly carbon dioxide and sulphurs.
Apart from the obvious industry energy conservation, the director could encourage energy conservation in domestic use—including the installation of low energy light bulbs. In my house we have installed such bulbs in areas where they are used a great deal, such as the porch and downstairs. They are bulky, but they can be hidden by choosing the right shade and they provide considerable cost savings because they last longer than average light bulbs. However, many people are unaware of the benefits of these light bulbs. If more houses switched to them it would considerably reduce the power generated. At present, one fifth of all power is used for domestic lighting.
Energy conservation could also be encouraged in fridges, washing machines and televisions, the modern variations of which use less energy than their older counterparts. However, the benefits of those machines are not driven home to the consumer.
Home insulation is another important method of energy conservation. Danish standards are far superior to ours. I understand from a conservation organisation that, if we adopted Danish methods, we could reduce the CO2 output by 510,000 tonnes every year—a significant reduction and a benefit to house quality standards.
There is no reason why the director should not have a far more interventionist role in advising house builders on the quality and insulation standards that they should use. There would be long-term benefits for us all—not least the people who buy the homes.
Research has been covered by other speakers so I shall not spend too long on it. However, as coal is our major power source—I believe that it will remain so for the foreseeable future, until there is more research into alternatives—I am disappointed that the Government have not shown greater commitment to the fluidised bed method of burning coal which is more efficient and cuts down on pollution. Another option involves biomass generators, which could be fuelled on fast-growing crops of willow, and could form part of an overall policy to reduce cereal crops and use EC funds to encourage farmers to grow biomass to fuel power stations.
More research and development is needed in district heat and power stations—perhaps domestic refuse could be burnt, which would not only generate power but would generate heat to towns and cities while reducing waste. I see nothing in the Bill to give the director and the power companies the sort of duty that the new clause proposes. The Government should welcome it in the spirit in which is is moved.
More consideration should be given to the design and environmental impact of power stations. It is only fair to give some credit to the CEGB which, when it put forward plans for the new Burton power station—not far from my constituency—devoted a large part of its planning application to an environmental impact study, designs for using the cooling pools, landscaping and the layout of the power stations. We all need power stations but they can be ugly and a great deal more can be done to make them blend into the environment and to use the considerable areas of land that accompany them in a positive way, encouraging and conserving nature.
The new clauses are progressive. The Government say that they are committed to a policy of environmental support; the new clauses will not only protect our environment and set targets to conserve energy conservation and reduce pollution, but could have long-term benefits for the competitiveness of our industry by encouraging it to take measures that will reduce its energy costs to the benefit of the community.

Mr. David Tredinnick: The headline on page 2 of The Times today says:
20,000 people a month joining green groups
The crucial proposal in new clause 7 is the requirement to impose a duty on the Director General of Electricity Supply; in new clause 12 to require the appointment of a deputy director general of electricity supply for energy conservation; and in new clause 13, to require a deputy director general of electricity supply for rural areas.
Hon. Members have three questions to consider before reaching a decision on the new clauses. The first is whether the existing provisions are adequate; secondly, whether adequate provision has been made, or is likely to be made in other legislation; and, thirdly, whether the Government's record makes the new clauses necessary. I am talking not just about the Government's recent record, but about their earlier record. I propose to address each of those questions in reverse order.
I consulted the Library about the measures that Conservative Governments have introduced in the House


since the 1950s. In that time they have introduced at least 10 Bills affecting the environment. For the benefit of the House I shall list them quickly. There is the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act 1955, which was amended in 1961 and 1973; the Clean Air Act 1956; the Litter Act 1958; the Noise Abatement Act 1960; the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1961; the Clean Rivers (Estuaries and Tidal Waters) Act 1960; the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971; the Radioactive Substances Act 1960; the Water Act 1973 and the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which I must admit was started by a Conservative Administration but was finally enacted under a Labour Administration. That does not sound like the record of a Government who have been negligent in environmental matters since the day that I was born in 1950. It is a rather good record.

Mr. Keith Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which began its life under a Conservative Government, no other Acts of environmental significance were enacted by the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979?

Mr. Tredinnick: My wise hon. Friend is correct. The Opposition must take that record into consideration. How quiet they are now.
There are more recent measures to consider. There is the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. That is a great favourite of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who I see has just come back into the Chamber. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution was set up by the Conservative Government in 1987 to improve the mechanism for the control of all types of pollution.
One of the great destroyers of natural beauty, flora, fauna, and geological or physiological features is acid rain.

Mr. Morley: At a recent meeting I and my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) heard the Prime Minister give a good speech on the need to protect hedgerows. My hon. Friend is the sponsor of a Bill which, for the first time, gives legal protection to hedgerows. Despite the Prime Minister's public commitment to that, the Government blocked that Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. This is a wide debate, but to include hedgerows is really stretching it too far.

Mr. Tredinnick: I shall try not to get too close to hedgerows, or hedgehogs.
There are several critical issues relating to pollution which I want to consider and see what has been done about them. The first is acid rain and the problems of sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide. Opposition Members say that the Government have been negligent in dealing with the problem of acid rain, but in 1984 the Government set a target of 30 per cent. reduction in total SO2 emissions by the end of the 1990s. As the Opposition have said, the Government's commitment in terms of real money was £600 million. That is hardly being negligent. In 1987 a programme was announced to reduce NOX emissions by 30 per cent. by the end of 1990. Again, substantial investment in low NO2 burners is being made to ensure that that target is met. That is hardly being negligent. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Wentworth, who is trying to intervene.

Mr. Hardy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I always try to give way to hon. Members with something to say and I would have given way to the hon. Gentleman in past debates if he had sought to intervene, but I shall not go into detail on that.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to a number of pieces of legislation. For example, he referred to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and claimed credit for the Government for that. However, that Act was Britain's response to the Berne convention for which members of the Socialist group of the Council of Europe, in which I was involved, were responsible. It also consolidated a number of other Acts of Parliament, two of which I had contributed myself, and it embodied, as a result of considerable effort on the part of Labour Members of the Standing Committee which considered that Bill, many amendments which were strengthened by initiatives taken in the other place. I could go on at great length, but the Government had little to do with many of the Bills for which it is suggested they should take credit.

Mr. Tredinnick: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman could go on—I would not question that—but I would question what he has just said. The inescapable fact is that it was this Government who produced the Bill and saw it enacted.
7 pm
Secondly, there is unleaded fuel. Lead absorbed into body tissue can cause damage to the brain and other organs. It is quite remarkable and quite outstanding that this Government have taken the lead in Europe in setting targets for the introduction of lead-free petrol throughout the Community. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has again stretched the differential between the price of ordinary petrol and the price of lead-free petrol. What a wonderful thing that is. The Government have certainly engendered tremendous support in my constituency by adopting that policy. The promotion of lead-free petrol illustrates again a laudable commitment of which we must take note.

Mr. James Wallace: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help me and other hon. Members in our efforts to work out the relevance of his comments to electricity. Is he about to suggest that one way of getting round the problem of lead in petrol would be to have electric battery-operated cars?

Mr. Tredinnick: I wondered whether I should give way to the hon. Gentleman; now I know that I made a mistake in doing so. I am illustrating what the Government have done, and posing the question whether we should consider these amendments as desirable additional measures. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have understood that.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has moved the frontiers beyond Europe, where we have taken the lead in lead-free petrol, to the rest of the world in what she and the Government have done concerning the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect. It is a fantastic tribute to my right hon. Friend that she seized the initiative in getting 200 world leaders to London to thrash out the crucial issues concerning this very worrying atmospheric problem that affect the world. We saw six concrete achievements resulting from that conference. There was agreement on CFC controls; 20 more countries agreed to the Montreal


protocol, and there was a commitment from 14 countries, including China and India, to consider signing it; the countries of the EEC agreed to a total ban—and what an achievement that was. Of course, we are also promoting the substitute gases that are so necessary to replace CFCs.

Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that people who live in greenhouses should not burn coal?

Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend is obviously thinking of the hon. Member for Wentworth.
I want to deal now with my last point. It concerns an item that the Government have addressed recently—research funding. When one looks at the record, contrary to what the Opposition claim, one finds that the Natural Environment Research Council has received a cash boost of £71 million over the period 1989–90 to 1991–92; that the British Antarctic Survey, which, of course, was responsible for the discovery of the hole in the ozone layer, is to receive £23 million over the same period; and that the public expenditure plans that were announced in November include an extra £2·6 million for the research programme of the Department of the Environment. That is hardly a poor record.
There is one other aspect that must be considered—the leadership of the parties, and who is doing most in environmental control. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a scientist. I do not see many scientists on the Opposition Benches. There is quite a contrast between the way that my right hon. Friend tackles environmental issues and the way that the Leader of the Opposition tackles them. I am indebted to a Mr. Malcolm Grimston, of Trevelyan road, Tooting, who wrote saying:
After the ozone layer conference Mr. Kinnock was on the radio. After giving grudging praise to the Prime Minister he went on about how deforestation in Brazil was causing extra carbon dioxide and methane to be released, and this was also damaging the ozone layer. This is rubbish. Carbon dioxide and methane don't attack ozone, though they do add to the far more serious greenhouse effect.
That is a pretty fair illustration of the lack of knowledge of environmental issues at the very top in the Labour party.
The Government's record, long-term and short-term, is good. Besides this Bill, they have acted in a whole range of areas to improve the environment, and, of course, we have better leadership.
Let me refer to the 20,000 people a month who are joining green movements. It seems to me fairly clear that for anybody thinking of joining a green movement the right way of spending money is to join the organisation that is most likely to effect change, and that is the Conservative party. The first priority should be to join the Conservative party, and the second priority should be to join the Tory green initiative, which has been set up specifically to channel the tremendous concern on this side of the House.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I wonder how many copies of this Tory Central Office brief there are to spare. I should like to have one—perhaps, after the hon. Member has finished, the one that he is using.

Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman chivalrously question my notes. I can assure him that I wrote them myself. However, if he would like a photocopy after the proceedings, perhaps he would like to meet me behind the Chair.
I have been asking myself whether the wording of schedule 9 is strong enough. I know that this is what exercises the minds of many Opposition Members—whether phrases such as "having regard" and "taking into account" are strong enough to ensure that the director general will put into effect the intentions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. At the 19th sitting of the Standing Committee, I raised the issue of the conservation of energy, as against the creation of energy sources. Some Opposition Members may find common ground with me when I say that it is essential that we keep very much in the forefront of our minds the possibility of cutting energy consumption. I cite in particular the dramatic numbers of people who are now interested in environmental issues. I say to my right hon. Friend that we really must keep at the forefront of our minds the possibility of cutting energy consumption.
Let me illustrate the point by drawing attention to a survey that was carried out in the north-west of England late last year. It was found that a 20 per cent. cut in energy consumption could be achieved at a cost of £1 billion. The cost of Sizewell B is £1·646 billion, and the cost of Hinkley Point £1·47 billion. I am not suggesting that these stations should not be built, but I am suggesting that there is a trade-off here that we should consider very seriously. I know that my right hon. Friend is considering it very seriously; what I hope to do is to reinforce his thoughts.
I come, finally, to the issue of how the alternative energies that are now coming forward—wind, wave and even plants as energy sources—fit into the scheme of this Bill.

Mr. Morgan: Sit down.

Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who has spoken so often in Committee, is obviously anxious to get up again. I have not had the advantage of speaking as often as he has, so I should be grateful if he would bear with me while I finish my speech.
I have received letters from organisations such as the Wind Energy Group—which is a British Aerospace and Taylor Woodrow company—stressing how the Wind Energy Group's MS3 can now generate electricity at a cost competitive with that of nuclear power. The director, Dr. Peter Musgrove, informs me:
Given a fair price for electricity from wind turbines it is quite realistic to forecast the installation of up to 500 MW annually throughout the 1990s so that wind energy could supply several per cent. of our electricity needs by the year 2000.
He says that his concern is that the legislation now being drafted will mean that wind energy is treated unfairly in the context of nuclear energy. That is something that we have to guard against. We have diversity and we welcome it, and I am very anxious that the alternative sources of energy should be given a fair crack of the whip.
The Government have a fine record, in both the long term and the short term, but I ask the Minister to ensure that the Director General of Electricity Supply takes into account the environment, energy conservation and alternative sources of power.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I now know why the Government Whip would not let the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) speak in Committee. We would still have been on the first amendment if he had


allowed him to get up. He does talk a load of rubbish, he really does. In Committee, I accused him of being sensible, but I will withdraw that now.
It is really a great pleasure—

Mr. Tredinnick: rose—

Mr. Haynes: No, I will not give way; the hon. Member has only just sat down.
It is really a great pleasure to have the Secretary of State in attendance during this very important debate. This is a very important issue and my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) did a first-class job in moving the new clause. He made it clear to the Government what should be happening when this privatisation takes place on the question of conservation and efficiency in the electricity industry. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech.
Hon. Members have talked about research in connection with the industry. That lot over there are guilty of cutting back on research, never mind what the hon. Member for Bosworth said about pouring in £70 million or so since 1979.
By the way, it is about time the laddie went outside to have his nappy changed, because he is still wearing nappies judging by the way he has been talking this afternoon.

Mr. Tredinnick: rose—

Mr. Haynes: No, I am not going to give way. Stay down.
Since this Government have been in office they have done nothing but cut back here, there and everywhere, on research among other things. I remember one of my hon. Friends standing up seven or eight years ago and saying that the Aston university had lost 1,100 places under this Administration. That is in one university, and we are talking about people being trained and educated for the job of research, not only in the electricity industry but in many other industries. So I do not know why the hon. Gentleman made the comment he did, because he is completely wrong. I am correct; the facts are in my favour and I have the information I need from the people on the Opposition Benches who have sussed it out.
7.15 pm
When it comes to conservation, I know what the Government are after. It is not a question of conservation for people who are buying in to this marvellous industry and lining their pockets with gold—including foreigners.
The Secretary of State laughs. It is not a laughing matter; it is a serious matter. The Government will allow foreigners to pour in over our shores and buy shares in our electricity industry. This is how that lot go on. They are not bothered about the British; they are looking after the foreigners. That is why we have this argument down the road about Harrods. I am looking at this thing sensibly. The people of this nation are laughing at that lot the way they are carrying on. But they will not be in office much longer. We shall be moving across the Floor and we shall put it right; we shall put the electricity industry, as well as many other industries, right.
I have been in the Secretary of State's constituency. I should have told him when I went, but I did not, and I apologise for that. I went to have a look at the palatial property in which he lives, and he really does live in a

palatial property. When I saw it I thought to myself that there were not many properties like that in my constituency, with all those poor old colliers that I worked with underground for 35 years. Some of them are living in hovels, and it is because of the policy decisions of the Conservative Government. We talk about energy conservation. The roofs are falling in and the Government have cut back on grants. We are wasting energy when the Government ought to be encouraging people to do something to their properties to conserve energy.
The Conservatives talk about efficiency. We have never seen anything efficient coming from the Government Benches and it is about time we did. It is about time Government Members livened themselves up as far as efficiency is concerned.
I have seen efficiency. I had 35 years of efficiency underground and I am proud of it. When I come into this place and find the Tory Government doing the things they are doing, I see no efficiency. But we will put that lot right; there is no doubt about that. They stand at those Benches and at the Dispatch Box bragging and boosting themselves up, but a lot of them will not come back to the House. We shall be on that side and we shall make all the decisions that have to be made.
When the Government talk about efficiency they mean less and less manpower. That is how they look at efficiency —more people on the dole, more profit for the rich to pour into their pockets. We have had a bellyful, we have had enough, and we shall change the system at the first opportunity we get. We shall do it well, and that lot will be sorry for what they have done to the people of this nation in terms of electricity, the poll tax, the Health Service—I am reeling these off as the hon. Member for Bosworth reeled off the Bills. I am reeling off all the wicked things that the Government have been doing since 1979. The lad only came into the House in 1987. He is getting an education this afternoon, as he did in Committee, and there is more to come. Until that lot go we will educate them on what they should be doing in the interests of the people.
We are talking about the Electricity Bill, which I hope will not become an Act, because I hope that the people outside the House will demonstrate quite clearly that they do not want what has been pushed down their throats, particularly on electricity, water and health.
I hope that the Government and the Secretary of State have got the message. I am pleased that the Secretary of State is here to listen to me. He said that he enjoyed my speech yesterday. I hope that he has enjoyed this one. I do not make fancy speeches for people to read in future records. My speeches come from the heart because I represent the people of Ashfield and I shall continue to fight on their behalf.

Mr. Wallace: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). There is certainly no conservation of energy in the spirited way in which he delivers his contributions, and I am sure that the House commends him for that.
Hon. Members have highlighted the great contribution that conservation of energy can make. Some examples have been given, not least by my hon. Friend for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) who highlighted the ways in which energy conservation can make a valuable contribution.
About eight or nine years ago somebody suggested that if all the money up to that time spent on Britain's nuclear industry had been spent on thatching roofs the amount of energy conserved would have been equivalent to the amount of energy generated by nuclear power. That example is by way of illustration rather than a prescription, but it underlines the great importance of energy conservation. It is important not only in terms of the stewardship of our resources but because of the benefits that it can bring.
It has often struck me as quite telling that many elderly people and people on benefit who receive benefit through the post could well save much money by the simple operation of insulating their homes. Such a policy has a strong environmental base. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon spoke about the importance of low-cost planning. A case can be made for that in economic terms, but it does not take into account the important environmental benefit.
I had hoped that the Government would be sympathetic at least to the ideas put forward in the Bill even if they were not sympathetic to the amendments and new clauses 7 and 12. We should have been able to hope for some positive response. If amendments were technically deficient, the Government could have said that they would bring forward correct ones in another place. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) put his finger on the real point when he spoke about the Bonneville Power Administration. He accepted that that company had shown what could be done through investment and energy conservation. In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon said that that had not been done as a result of the company's own free will but that someone had had to prompt the company to do it. That is what is behind the new clauses.
Energy conservation has not been practised in the past and the record shows that it will not happen in future. We need someone to give companies a prod, and we propose a deputy director general of electricity supply who will be able to do that. That will ensure that the electricity supply industry takes into account the great savings and the contribution that can be made by energy conservation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) spoke about new clause 17. We want to see a deputy director general of electricity supply with special responsibility for rural areas. I acknowledge that a common tariff will be charged throughout the area of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. That is welcome, especially in my constituency. Our new clause would add to the duties of our proposed deputy director a duty for boards to have regard to the social and economic requirements of the area served by the various supply boards. That requirement currently exists in the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board but it will disappear if the Bill becomes law.
The disappearance of such a statutory duty is regrettable. The Government have sought to justify it by saying that there will be a common tariff, and that is fair enough. Secondly, they have said that there are now other bodies charged with responsibility for economic and social development. Too much cannot be done to try to promote the economic and social development of areas with special geographic problems such as the Highlands and Islands. Most places in the Highlands and Islands are now connected to the electricity supply. It is fair to acknowledge that that has been done with assistance from

the uneconomic rural development programme. However, some people are still not connected to the main electricity supply.
One of my constituents comes regularly to see me. In 1985 he was given a tentative quote by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board that it would cost £10,500 to connect him to the main supply. He was told that connection would have to take place at the end of the uneconomic rural development programme. More recently he sought an estimate and was told that the cost would be £60,000. I am talking about an elderly couple living in croft property in Orkney and the wife is an invalid. They have a generator but it cannot be operated for 24 hours a day and that means that they lose the benefits of refrigeration and night storage heating. It would be of great value to those people if their property could be connected to the mains supply. I agree that in some conservation areas planning permission is not likely to be given for overhead wires, and underground cables are much more costly. I do not know how anyone could reasonably expect an elderly pensioner couple to find £60,000 for vital supplies.
I am told that under the crofting grants scheme the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Scotland can offer a £600 grant and a loan of £600. Clearly, that is not enough. I have asked the Minister of State, Scottish Office to see whether there is any way in which assistance can be offered. I wrote to him some time ago, but he has not yet replied. I do not criticise him for that because I am sure that he realises the seriousness of the problem although I doubt whether he can find a way around it.
New clause 17 seeks to ensure the possibility of every domestic household being connected to the main supply. That should be done at a cost that is within the means of the vast majority of people. While the tariff is common throughout the north of Scotland there are no guarantees for any other part of Scotland or for the rest of the United Kingdom. Will the Minister tell us what he understands by the word "tariff"? Does it mean the standing charge? Does it include charges for repair or a call-out charge? While one would not expect connection charges to be identical throughout an area there should be at least some common basis on which charges are calculated, such as happens at the moment for wayleave payments.
The quality of the supply and especially the quality of the repair service are vital in remote rural areas and cannot be measured in terms of pounds and pence. Those things cannot be left on trust. We need a person with responsibility for looking after the provision of the electricity supply in rural areas. That would ensure that when the supply was cut, not least because of inclement weather, there would be someone to put pressure on the electricity supply industry to ensure a proper and adequate response. No one expects overnight miracles, but without additional prompting the quality of the electricity supply to rural areas could seriously diminish. That is why I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Eric Illsley: I want to make one point about the Grimethorpe fluidised bed plant because that plant stands at the edge of my constituency. As several hon. Members have said, the funding for the continuation of that plant's experiments has been under threat for several months.
Only yesterday, British Coal gave evidence to the Select Committee on Energy that £12 million would be necessary to continue the experiments. As British Coal has attracted private investment from a foreign company in Finland called Ahlström, we should like a commitment from the Minister about future funding. I understand that the decision could be delayed until after September because of the public expenditure allocations. If the money is delayed until then, the plant will have to close. Already jobs have been lost at the plant in the sense that some key personnel have gone abroad to work on similar schemes. Those jobs were in and around my constituency. I want the Minister to consider British Coal's request for a sign that the funding will be forthcoming even if that means waiting for the cash until September.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I want to answer three specific points before I set out the Government's general position. We agree entirely with the Opposition about the very important subject of energy conservation and its relationship to the Bill.
Having designated today as "environment day"—I am not sure whether that is official—the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said that we had cut the Energy Efficiency Office budget. He said that we would presumably be left with a massive generalised advertising campaign. The sneer with which he made that point—perhaps sneer is too strong a word; rather, his pained tone —showed that he thought that that would be a waste of money. I assure him that the cuts have taken place precisely because we cut the generalised advertising budget. We have replaced that large generalised budget, which we agree with the hon. Gentleman is not the best way to convey the message, with a much more cost-effective advisory programme targeted at specific major users. We think, and I suspect from the comments made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield that he would agree, that that is the best way to convey the message.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has just popped out of the Chamber so perhaps his colleagues will pass my comments on to him. He raised the matter of common tariffs. The privatised public electricity supply companies, the present area boards, will maintain the present structure for five years after flotation if that takes place in 1990. Ultimately we cannot prevent companies from charging tariffs which relate to costs. However, powers will be given to the director general under the terms of the Bill to enable him to ensure that tariffs relate to costs and are not excessive or in any way an abuse of a company's power. That new protection for consumers will exist in the Bill.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister said that there was no way in which the Government could enforce a particular stucture. However, I understand that they will enforce the common tariff structure for the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. If it is possible to do it there, why is it impossible to do it in the rest of the country? Is the Minister backtracking from the commitments given about the north of Scotland?

Mr. Spicer: I did not say that there was no way in which we could do it. I said that there is no way in which we would want to do it. Very special circumstances apply in the north of Scotland in terms of its geography and the way in which it is supplied with electricity—primarily through hydro. The Government felt that there were exceptional circumstances in the north of Scotland. Generally we would not wish to distort the market by insisting on common tariffs.
In answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) about his constituent, I can tell him that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office has taken that on board and has had a word with the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend will look into the matter. Under the terms of the Bill, if the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was distressed about a particular charge for connection imposed on a constituent, he could involve the director general in determining whether that charge was correct. In that respect, the Bill is an improvement for the consumer.
It is easy to agree with almost every speech; turning lights on and generating heat involves processes which, with the exception of certain nuclear and renewable technologies, deplete the world stock of natural resources and, with no exceptions, have potential detrimental effects on the environment. The difficult part about this debate is to agree on what to do about it.
The thrust of the amendments is to rely on measures aimed at conserving energy. The most illiberal of those proposals is contained, as is sadly often the case these days, in the amendments of the old Liberal party. Those proposals relate to giving the regulator powers of direction and intervention to ensure, for example, that no new plant is developed unless a deputy director for conservation is satisfied that it meets certain conservationist criteria. The Democrats have gone over the top with new clause 17 which the Chair has allowed us to refer to. That new clause has been popping on and off the Amendment Paper over the past 24 hours like a jack-in-the-box.
New clause 17 proposes a rural supremo. Perhaps the Liberals can have a word with Mr. Gorbachev while he is in town. He is trying to withdraw his supremos from the countryside. The proposal for a deputy director for conservation and one for the countryside leads us to wonder why we do not have deputy directors for small houses, large houses, mothers or babies. We do not believe in that kind of interventionism. There is no way in which we can accept the new clause.
The Labour amendment proposes that a director should set annual targets for energy efficiency. Before we rush down that path of central direction and control, we should ask ourselves what is the precise purpose of conservation. Two distinct objectives have been mentioned so far and each of them may require distinct policies.
The first objective of conservation, as suggested by several hon. Members, is to make better use of scarce resources. The Government view on that is clearly different from that of the other political parties. Rather than use the instruments of central direction we shall provide the variety and the market conditions that will allow for advancing resource-efficient ways of producing power. In an excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) stressed that particular point.

Mr. Blair: The Minister makes the extraordinary argument that he has some inhibition about central control, whereas he is setting up a panoply of regulation in the public interest that will interfere with the industry in many ways. Suppose that the interests of the market and of the environment conflict. Is the Minister prepared to interfere with the market to uphold the interests of the environment?

Mr. Spicer: I shall be dealing with such matters soon. I am trying to distinguish between the different thrusts of our argument, and perhaps I should not have given way. I shall be stressing that when it comes to environmental questions, the Government have a panoply of arguments. For the moment, I am talking about making better use of resources. Quite often, the Labour party engages in generalised rhetoric without explaining what it has in mind. We believe that it is better to focus on what we are proposing to achieve in the area of conservation. That is one of the reasons why we introduced the non-fossil fuel obligation, which the Opposition have so derided.
Nuclear power is certainly resource efficient, as are renewable sources of energy. It appears to have escaped the attention of the Opposition that last night we announced a special provision for renewables within the non-fossil fuel obligation. For the first time ever—and no one disputes this—the Bill gives the regulator the duty to promote efficiency. Above all, in the context of making better use of natural resources, the Bill radically restructures the industry, to allow energy-efficient producers to come on to the system. I have no doubt that that will happen, and the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) agreed that such producers will come on to the system as a consequence of our proposed restructuring.
Plans for combined cycle gas-fired stations, for new technology coal-fired plants, and even for smaller nuclear power stations are, as a direct result of the Bill, appearing in their legions as proposals with genuine prospects of being implemented. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East was also absolutely correct in that respect.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Minister is in danger of confusing himself. He said that he would move on to speak about environmental issues as distinct from those of conservation, and therefore does not accept that conservation is an environmental issue. Also, he proceeds to tell the House about the list of generating investment that is to come, as if it were an instrument of conservation. Conservation is about reducing demand, and therefore about reducing the requirment for additional investment in generating capacity.

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman appears not to be listening as attentively as he normally does. He will see in Hansard tomorrow that I said that there are two functions of conservation. One deals with natural resources depletion, the other with the environment. We must be sure that we focus our policies in such a way that they will deal with both.
For the moment I am discussing resource depletion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East pointed out, even the successor companies to the CEGB are beginning to adapt to the spirit of the new age created by the Bill—judging by the recent pronouncements of Mr. Robert Malpas, chairman-designate of PowerGen.
The second objective of energy conservation is to meet the growing and legitimate concern for our environment, notably in respect of the effects of acid rain, SO2 emissions, and the warming effect caused by CO2. Our view, in contrast to that expressed by some hon. Members, is that we cannot rely solely on conservation measures to solve those problems. Demand for electricity is growing, and it is likely to continue increasing in all major industralised countries as consumers install new electrical processes and equipment. When the hon. Member for Gordon presents—as he did throughout the Committee stage—conservation as his major policy, he must acknowledge that major international organisations such as the International Energy Agency and the European Commission forecast continuing growth in electricity demand throughout the Community, even after taking account of prospective efficiency gains.
7.45 pm
A policy that wholly or largely relies on conservation —as does that of the hon. Member for Gordon from time to time, and, although I may be misinterpreting him, it is a policy which seems to be implicit at least in the Opposition's amendment—flies in the face of what is likely to occur in the next few years. Even allowing for conservation measures, demand is likely to grow. As we expect to be in government for the next 15 years, we cannot afford to theorise about those matters, and must be sure that the lights do not go out for old people and for the constituents we all represent. We must ensure that the growing demand for electricity is met while minimising the effects of that expansion on the environment. The key problems are how to achieve increased supply and not to rely exclusively on conservation to protect the environment. That is why the Government have introduced the tightest regulations ever to control SO2 emissions, for example, which will have to be reduced by 60 per cent. on 1980 levels by the year 2003.
The other day, I heard it reported on radio that the hon. Member for Sedgefield proposed setting up reduced emission targets that would include one for CO2. As we do not yet have the technology for controlling CO2 emissions, I have to ask the hon. Gentleman whether that is a n implicit reversal of Labour's anti-nuclear policy.

Mr. Blair: I was talking about conservation targets.

Mr. Spicer: If the hon. Gentleman meant conservation, I refer him to my earlier remarks, when I said that we must allow for the fact that demand will increase, even allowing for conservation. Targets related to CO2 are a nonsense, and the hon. Gentleman probably knows it.
It is right to search for clean coal technologies, and right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House are right to stress the need for it. That brings me to the future of Grimethorpe. We have spent £17 million of public money on Grimethorpe, and we are now trying to ensure that industry adopts the available technology, particularly that relating to the topping cycle. We place great emphasis on individual involvement, mainly because in that way we can ensure that when the technology is fully developed it will be used—as opposed to being just another piece of fancy research that does nothing more than pander to green rhetoric. We have a good chance of successfully finding such a combination of industrial involvement in the technology. I certainly spend much of my time ensuring that that involvement takes place.

Mr. Kevin Barron: If by the end of the public expenditure round in September or October of this year, industry cannot fund Grimethorpe, will the Government fund it to make sure that the topping cycle —we are a world leader in that technology—is continued in the autumn of this year?

Mr. Spicer: I cannot accept that. Even the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) accepted that the public expenditure round takes place in its own way. I cannot predict what submissions my Department might make to the Treasury or what the Treasury's response would be. I confirm that we are looking for industrial involvement in the project, for the good reason—not just the financial reason—that industrial involvement would mean that there would be a marketplace for the technology. It would not be sensible simply to pile in public money, in the absence of a genuine marketplace and take-up for the technology. Much public money has already been spent on Grimethorpe. If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, he will understand that there has not been much take-up of the technologies.
We want to be sure that the development that takes place at Grimethorpe is taken up by industry. Industrial involvement is clearly the best way forward for Grimethorpe. We are certainly doing our best to ensure that there is such involvement.
There is a difference of approach between the Government and the Opposition parties on major matters of environmental controls and of conservation in particular.

Mr. Lofthouse: The Minister has already been informed by myself and other hon. Members that Mr. Malcolm Edwards made it clear yesterday that, by September, if there is no money from the Government, the Grimethorpe plant will be doomed. If that is the case, there would be little research into that technology in this country. Emergency measures must be taken by the Government to save Grimethorpe between now and September. Mr. Malcolm Edwards made it clear that he could not foresee any private sector money, apart from what has already been accepted, going into the scheme.

Mr. Spicer: I do not speak or answer for Mr. Malcolm Edwards. I answer for the Government. We are looking for industrial commitment to the technology, not because of funding but because we want the technology to be developed in such a way that it will be applied. That is a sensible way of going forward.

Mr. Allen McKay: As far as I can recollect, there have been field studies into industrial technology and other high-tech matters. Are the Government prepared to test the fluidised bed on a field basis to prove its viability?

Mr. Spicer: As the House already knows, there is considerable industrial involvement. We want to find more people to be involved, for the good reason that it will then be much more likely that the technology will be properly applied and used. We are not just spending money or keeping jobs in Grimethorpe. That is not the primary objective of even those hon. Members who represent constituents' interests. All hon. Members are concerned about developing a technology that will be applied to make the use of coal much more efficient, and particularly to affect carbon dioxide emission levels. One way in which

we can ensure that the technology is applied is to get the participation of those who believe in the application of the technology. That will be good for its further use in the way that we have argued it should be used.
The Labour party and the Liberals would engage in rhetoric and bureaucracy, and that is demonstrated by their amendments. The Government are engaged in providing the market conditions and the associated regulations which will protect the environment and make the best use of scarce resources. For that reason, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the amendments should they be pressed to a vote.

Mr. Morgan: Hon. Members should be conscious of the importance that energy and the environment may have in politics. We are conscious of the visit by President Gorbachev, glasnost, and East-West relations. The Secretary of State is to visit the USSR next week. We must remember also that Mr. Gorbachev and glasnost would never have been successful but for the catastrophic Chernobyl accident. The attempt by the old Russian system to close the matter and say, "We must not tell the public about it," set the glasnost ball rolling in the Soviet Union. That is why we, in turn, place great emphasis on the conservation of energy and on conservation being written into the Bill in a much more powerful way than the Government have so far agreed to do. Why have the Government kept the Bill so weak and toned it down?
The Minister spoke at length, trying to break down energy conservation into its component parts and persuade people to make better industrial use of electricity in particularly and energy in general. He mentioned the problems that have arisen and the use of new technology in generation and utilising the waste heat that inevitably comes from generation. In his view, pollution has presented some sort of challenge. He said that, somehow, we are failing to take account of the impact of the coal industry on the pollution load in the atmosphere. The Government have suddenly deemed that they should grab the great issue of the greenhouse effect arising from carbon dioxide. That problem has arisen in the past two or three years. There is no point in jobbing backwards. Scientists are not examining it.
If the cause and effect that some scientists believe to exist in the connection between fossil fuel electricity generation and global warming is firmly proved over the next three or four years, obviously it will be a matter for policy adjustments when scientists have a clear message to tell us. In the meantime, it is not possible to find a serious scientist who is willing to commit himself or herself to the view that it is right now to change technologies from fossil fuel to nuclear fuel or other renewables. They will say that it makes sense to opt for conservation. The greenhouse effect argument that the Government have been trying to promote and use as a justification for the non-fossil fuel levy and for the protective right fence that they are putting around the nuclear industry but not around the coal industry was used by scientists to promote the need to write in conservation measures, as most American states have done and as the European Community is trying to do, but as this Government, given their big opportunity, are funking.
Let us work out why. The answer is simple. We have read about the great argument—we have heard it on serious television current affairs programmes on Sundays —between the Secretary of State for the Environment and


the Secretary of State for Energy. The Secretary of State for the Environment wants Britain to go all nuclear as quickly as possible. The Secretary of State for Energy had to put him right and insist, but in more elegant language, "Stay off my turf." He believes that we cannot afford to commit ourselves to a big programme of nuclear power and hope to float the industry.
The Secretary of State for the Environment says that he is an all-nuclear man, whereas the Secretary of State for Energy has a job to do—to sell the industry to the private sector. He is perfectly well aware from the advice that he is receiving from the merchant banks that one simply cannot do that and commit oneself to major changes in technology or to a building programme which he knows that the British power engineering industry cannot meet. He knows that if there were to be a big shift to nuclear power, there would he no chance of privatising the industry.
One cannot say that the industry is now due for a sea change in technology and for a major shift to some new and, in British terms, unproven method of generating power and yet hope to sell the industry. That would be an argument for keeping the industry in the public sector. There are many other arguments for that, but that is the argument that the merchant banks would use if the Secretary of State for the Environment were successful in persuading the Secretary of State for Energy that he had to shift to a major programme of nuclear power.
8 pm
The Department of Energy says that it wants to keep things simple and not tell anyone in the City who might be advising the buyers that they might need to think about huge write-offs of existing plant. The Department of Energy says that the industry should be kept as it is so that it can produce profits every year and that if there were to be tighter regulations, they should be introduced on a cumulative basis, a few per cent. a year, with which the industry could cope as if it were a conventional company.
The Secretary of State for the Environment goes for the big bang and the shifting of everything into nuclear power. We believe that we should adapt the existing technology and convert to smaller power stations, from which we could obtain far higher efficiency ratings. We are well aware that it is possible to improve the peak performance of power stations from the present 37 per cent. fuel efficiency to 75 per cent., with the use of the combined cycle, combined heat and power technology or both at the same time.
The other points that the Opposition have raised have been in relation to the Government's attitude to the Energy Efficiency Office and other allied activities. There has been an enormous deterioration in the availability of advice to industry and consumers because of the change from the community regulations to the employment training regulations in respect of schemes that can provide energy advice or energy saving devices in houses, such as draught strips and insulation. Grants have also been abolished.
I shall give an example from Cardiff. About six months ago, 230 people were engaged in energy advice under the community programme. In spite of the changes announced by the Department of Employment to try to save some of the schemes, only 40 people are now engaged in that scheme. The energy advice centre has been scrapped completely because it proved to be wholly

impossible to make it compatible with the employment training regulations. That is a major loss to energy efficiency and conservation and it is a matter with which the Government have proved themselves inadequate to cope.
The Government's actions since the new year do not give us any confidence in the future of energy conservation. That is why we believe that it is essential to write into the Bill far stricter provisions than the Government have in mind. We know that the only people who are stopping the Government are the merchant bankers in the City who say that stricter provisions would over-complicate the issue and might stop the industry being sold off successfully. The merchant banks believe that if the Government want a successful sale, they should keep matters plain and simple and ensure that the industry can see the profits coming. The merchant banks believe that the Government should not tell people what there is to worry about in the energy future of the world.
We are glad that Mr. Malpas, the chief executive of PowerGen, has done his best to bring to the notice of the investing public, the general public and, most importantly, to the Government, just how important energy conservation is, whether the future of the electricity industry is in the public or private sector. Before any Conservative Back Benchers get the idea that conservation of the environment can be left safely to the private sector, I must point out that Opposition Members do not want to see the corner-cutting ethics and mentality of the Esso oil company, which caused the Prince William sound disaster of the Exxon Valdez in the past couple of weeks, running the electricity industry in this country.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 254.

Division No. 142]
[8.4 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cohen, Harry


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Coleman, Donald


Allen, Graham
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Anderson, Donald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cousins, Jim


Armstrong, Hilary
Cox, Tom


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Crowther, Stan


Ashton, Joe
Cryer, Bob


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cummings, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Dalyell, Tam


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Battle, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Beckett, Margaret
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Beith, A. J.
Dewar, Donald


Bell, Stuart
Dixon, Don


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dobson, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Doran, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Duffy, A. E. P.


Blair, Tony
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bradley, Keith
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Eadie, Alexander


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Buckley, George J.
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Caborn, Richard
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fearn, Ronald


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Fisher, Mark


Clay, Bob
Flannery, Martin


Clelland, David
Flynn, Paul


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Foot, Rt Hon Michael






Foster, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Foulkes, George
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fraser, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fyfe, Maria
Morgan, Rhodri


Galbraith, Sam
Morley, Elliott


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


George, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Murphy, Paul


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Brien, William


Gould, Bryan
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Graham, Thomas
Parry, Robert


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Patchett, Terry


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pendry, Tom


Grocott, Bruce
Pike, Peter L.


Hardy, Peter
Prescott, John


Harman, Ms Harriet
Primarolo, Dawn


Haynes, Frank
Quin, Ms Joyce


Henderson, Doug
Radice, Giles


Hinchliffe, David
Randall, Stuart


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Redmond, Martin


Home Robertson, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hood, Jimmy
Reid, Dr John


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Robertson, George


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Howells, Geraint
Rogers, Allan


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Rooker, Jeff


Hoyle, Doug
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Illsley, Eric
Skinner, Dennis


Ingram, Adam
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Janner, Greville
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Snape, Peter


Kennedy, Charles
Soley, Clive


Lambie, David
Spearing, Nigel


Leighton, Ron
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lewis, Terry
Steinberg, Gerry


Litherland, Robert
Stott, Roger


Livsey, Richard
Strang, Gavin


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McAllion, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McAvoy, Thomas
Turner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum A.
Vaz, Keith


McFall, John
Wall, Pat


McKelvey, William
Wallace, James


McLeish, Henry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McWilliam, John
Wareing, Robert N.


Madden, Max
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Marek, Dr John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Winnick, David


Martlew, Eric
Worthington, Tony


Maxton, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Meacher, Michael



Meale, Alan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Ray Powell.


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Benyon, W.


Aitken, Jonathan
Bevan, David Gilroy


Allason, Rupert
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Amess, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Amos, Alan
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Body, Sir Richard


Ashby, David
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, David
Bottomley, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baldry, Tony
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Batiste, Spencer
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Bellingham, Henry
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Bendall, Vivian
Brazier, Julian





Bright, Graham
Hunter, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Irvine, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Jack, Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Budgen, Nicholas
Knapman, Roger


Burns, Simon
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Burt, Alistair
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Butcher, John
Knowles, Michael


Butterfill, John
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lang, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Latham, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Lawrence, Ivan


Carttiss, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Cash, William
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Chapman, Sydney
Lilley, Peter


Churchill, Mr
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lord, Michael


Conway, Derek
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Maclean, David


Cormack, Patrick
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Couchman, James
Malins, Humfrey


Cran, James
Mans, Keith


Critchley, Julian
Maples, John


Curry, David
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Day, Stephen
Mates, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Maude, Hon Francis


Dicks, Terry
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dorrell, Stephen
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mellor, David


Dover, Den
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Durant, Tony
Miller, Sir Hal


Dykes, Hugh
Mills, Iain


Emery, Sir Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evennett, David
Mitchell, Sir David


Fallon, Michael
Moate, Roger


Favell, Tony
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Morrison, Sir Charles


Fookes, Dame Janet
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Forman, Nigel
Moss, Malcolm


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mudd, David


Forth, Eric
Neale, Gerrard


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Needham, Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Nelson, Anthony


Franks, Cecil
Neubert, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Nicholls, Patrick


French, Douglas
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fry, Peter
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gale, Roger
Norris, Steve


Gardiner, George
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gill, Christopher
Page, Richard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Paice, James


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Patnick, Irvine


Goodlad, Alastair
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Gow, Ian
Pawsey, James


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Gregory, Conal
Porter, David (Waveney)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Grist, Ian
Price, Sir David


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hague, William
Rathbone, Tim


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Redwood, John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Renton, Tim


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rhodes James, Robert


Hanley, Jeremy
Riddick, Graham


Harris, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hind, Kenneth
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Rowe, Andrew


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Ryder, Richard






Sackville, Hon Tom
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Thornton, Malcolm


Sayeed, Jonathan
Thurnham, Peter


Scott, Nicholas
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Trippier, David


Shelton, Sir William
Trotter, Neville


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shersby, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Sims, Roger
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waller, Gary


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Ward, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


Speed, Keith
Watts, John


Speller, Tony
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whitney, Ray


Squire, Robin
Widdecombe, Ann


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilshire, David


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Stevens, Lewis
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Woodcock, Mike


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Yeo, Tim


Sumberg, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Summerson, Hugo



Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and Mr. David Lightbown.


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)



Temple-Morris, Peter



Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 11

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

'(1) The Director General shall require that consumer committees, customers and members of the public have full access to any information regarding their health and safety resulting from any activities connected with the supply, generation or transmission of electricity.

(2) Nothing in this Act concerning the protection of information or persons shall prevent disclosure of any information required under (1) above.'.—[Mr. Malcolm Bruce.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 2 and 28.

Mr. Bruce: The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that information on safety is made available to consumer committees and to the public. That is not specifically allowed for in the Bill as it stands. The record of the electricity supply industry in the recent past suggests that such a measure is necessary. The Minister and hon. Members who served on the Committee with me know that I feel strongly about the conduct of the industry especially in relation to nuclear power. I believe that having the requirement that such information be made available to consumer committees and to the public would be beneficial to the image and to the esteem in which the industry is held by the public. The lack of such a provision has been extremely damaging in that respect.
The problem with the Bill as drafted is that the specific restriction on the publishing of information is likely to

work against the public interest and lead to the information being withheld or suppressed until long after it has any relevance or could in any way be helpful.
It might be helpful to the House if I quote three or four examples of the sort of information that I feel should be available. One problem that has been actively debated in recent years, especially since the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents, is exactly what emergency procedures there should be for a nuclear accident at a British nuclear installation. At the moment there is a lack of public awareness about exactly what would happen in the event of a significant nuclear accident. Do people actually know what to do? Do the operators of nuclear power stations know that action they should take? At what point should they alert people round about? When should they shut down and evacuate the area? What should people in the area be told to do in the event of a significant leak of radiation that would require action?
There is no doubt that if there were such a leak without people being properly informed, the instinct would be to run, to panic and to evacuate the area; yet there is evidence to suggest that that is the wrong thing to do, depending on how serious the accident is. When the plume of radiation is being discharged, that is not the time to be out in the open and, although there is a danger wherever one is, it may be safer to stay indoors than to go out into the open. People need to know when they should stay and when they should move.
There are practical considerations too. Nuclear power stations, in particular, tend to be in rather remote areas where the roads are not designed to allow a lot of people to move quickly at one time; the congestion could aggravate the seriousness of the incident. There is no agreed procedure as to whether or not and when, if and how, stable iodine tablets should be issued; people do not even know where they could get them or whether to take them.
This is in sharp contrast with the situation in the United States perhaps because, regrettably, that country has experienced a major accident. In the United States the telephone books in the area of a nuclear installation contain clear descriptions of what people should do in the event of a nuclear accident. We should, in any case, have that sort of agreement here. It should be published and available now, but it should certainly be done once the industry moves into the private sector, and the Bill should require it to be done.
The Prime Minister and other Ministers have suggested in replies to hon. Members that the whole thing is under control, that they have discussed this with all the relevant authorities and that the latter know what to do. That does not appear to be the view of the County Emergency Planning Officers Society whose members remain concerned about a number of shortfalls in the agreement. A working party has produced a number of reports yet still has outstanding concerns as to what can and should be done. So nobody is in a position either to say that the relevant authorities have a nationally agreed scheme and a standard of what should happen. Nor does anyone know how to publicise this or ensure that the public know what to do and what not to do in the event of a major disaster.
I make no apology for the fact that my examples are drawn mostly from nuclear accidents, but what I am saying applies to other kinds of generating station. The same procedures should apply. There should be a clear understanding of exactly what happens and how the public


will be informed. It is quite proper that the consumer committees set up under the Bill should be an integral part of the process of ensuring dissemination of accurate information.
A problem has emerged, for example, in relation to overhead power lines. I am not competent to say whether the anxieties that have been expressed about safety risks from living close to overhead power lines are valid, but I think that consumer committees should be empowered to get the relevant information, publicise it and make recommendations about appropriate action. I have had a representation from a doctor in my constituency who says that he has had complaints from patients living in the area of overhead power lines. Although he has no statistical proof, he feels that there is some correlation, although it may be more psychological than real. That is the kind of information that needs to be examined and circulated.
Workers in the industry have suffered from overdoses of radiation. They are entitled to know exactly what the situation is. In 1986 British Nuclear Fuels said that 631 of its employees had received a dose of radiation in excess of the approved safety level. Although figures are not available for the Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board, there seems to be some suggestion that some of their employees have been affected. This is aggravated by the National Radiation Protection Board's view that the recommended safety limit be reduced to one third. If that were applied, the numbers exposed to unsafe radiation levels in the industry would rise substantially. That kind of information ought to be available and properly circulated, and people working in the industry should have the right of access to it.
Our most recent experience is the Chernobyl disaster. What happened then is indicative of our country's lack of preparedness in the event of a major accident, not just in the United Kingdom but across the Channel in France or Belgium. Those countries are much closer to us than Kiev, so the intensity of radiation to which we could be exposed and the speed at which it arrived would require much more urgent and coherent reaction than the Chernobyl cloud required. Yet the reaction to Chernobyl was confused and contradictory and did anything but inspire public confidence in our procedures.
Perhaps I could refer the House to a letter in The Independent of 10 August 1988 from a senior registrar in community medicine and a lecturer in community medicine, writing from London NW3. They conducted their own survey of district medical officers to ask how they viewed the response at the time of Chernobyl. The writers had a response rate of 89 per cent., which in itself indicated a high level of concern. Fifty-two per cent. of those responding said that they had tried to get information about local radiation levels but had had little success. The general view was that what information was available was in a form that was unusable, unintelligible and contradictory. It was said that the blind were leading the blind and that the advice which arrived was too little and too late. Two years after the incident, the letter writers' view was that nothing had fundamentally changed.
We need to know how we would respond if—I hope it does not happen—we had an accident close to our shores or within the United Kingdom where it would appear that

we have no mechanism for ensuring that safety information is properly conveyed to the public, information to which they can have access as of right.
Lack of information leads to a proliferation of rumour and suspicion, which, in return, may lead to an exaggeration of the problem. If, for example, there is a minor radiation leak in a nuclear power station, there is no mechanism for ensuring that the information is made available to the relevant people; yet in the locality people will hear about it and will assume that it is much worse than it is because, they will argue, why should people cover up if it is only a minor incident? I am sure that the Minister will accept that it would be much better to state clearly the nature of the incident; then the consumer committees, because they would gain a degree of understanding, could put the matter in its proper perspective.
Having been a very strong critic of the conduct of the nuclear industry, I think that there has been an improvement—although it is not perfect by any means —in recent years. The difficulty is that the industry has spent so many years misleading the public and suppressing information that there is a fundamental inability to take anything that the industry says at face value. People are extremely suspicious.
Perhaps the most dramatic example of suppression of information that the public had a right to know is that of the Windscale fire. It happened a long time ago and we are fortunate that, although it was a serious incident—the most serious in the United Kingdom—we have not had an incident on that scale since. I believe that what happened there is indicative of how serious the suppression problem is. I shall not go into the political domain about the fact that the Prime Minister of the day basically suppressed the information because it was thought to be unwise, undesirable and politically embarrassing to reveal it. My concern is that the National Radiological Protection Board estimated that the Windscale fire led to 260 cases of thyroid cancers, 13 of them fatal.
Another estimate has suggested that there could have been up to 1,000 fatal cancers linked to that fire. That is serious information. What happened was that there was a fire and a discharge of radiation, and information on the matter was suppressed. People in the area were not told and therefore were not able to take any precautions. They were exposed to excessive levels of radiation and as a result 1,000 people died of cancer during the years that followed. Clearly, if they had had the right of access to that information, some of those deaths would have been avoided because precautions could have been taken at the time.
8.30 pm
The right to know is a fundamental right, as is the right to take relevant action to protect one's own life. The new clause would ensure that the consumer committees and the public generally had a right to obtain information relating directly to their health requirements. I believe, therefore, that the new clause would be welcomed.
The Minister should accept the new clause because at the end of the day it will be beneficial to the industry. The industry's record of suppressing information and releasing bits and pieces of information late and in a form that does not increase knowledge, adds to public concern and anxiety and has probably damaged the industry's public image almost irreparably. There is no doubt that, if that action were taken, a start could be made towards ensuring


that there was greater confidence between the public and the consumer committees and the industry. The public would have the right to information about what was happening in the electricity supply industry that would have implications for their safety and that of those working in the industry.
I hope that the House will accept the new clause.

Mr. Hardy: I shall not take as long as the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), but I urge the Minister to look favourably on the new clause. I accept that it may have one defect that is perhaps regrettable, which is that it does not refer directly to those who are employed in the industry. However, one assumes that the Democrats were including those people in the reference to members of the public. I believe that the intention of the new clause is one that we should support and, if it comes to a vote, I shall be in the Lobby with the hon. Member for Gordon.
The Minister should recognise that education goes hand in hand with safety. We see far too much of the furtive commitment to secrecy from the present Administration. I shall cite an example. Probably the only open Department of State nowadays is the Department of Transport. It has recognised that it is necessary to put warning notices up on our highways. I accept that under this Administration warning notices proliferate much more than they have ever before. However, if the Department of Transport feels that it is necessary to warn people of approaching road hazards, surely the Department of Energy should insist that a similar approach is adopted for generation. I am not talking only of nuclear generation. I accept, too, that the hon. Member for Gordon was not restricting his remarks to that sector.
The Government must recognise that people demand more information. About two days after the Chernobyl incident I recall a member of the present Cabinet saying to me, "Is it not disgraceful that the Russians are not saying anything about this event that is reported to have happened in the Soviet Union?" I said, "I don't know anything about it, but, if they don't say anything about it, it would, indeed, be disgraceful and disreputable." After the first few days the Russians were quite severely criticised for an excessive reticence, which may have been due to an excessive bureaucracy. However, the fact remains that after that period of discretion, reticence, or whatever one likes to call it, they were a great deal more open and informative in telling the world about the details of that dreadful accident that some Western countries have been in regard to incidents or accidents in their plants, which, fortunately, have not been on the same scale as Chernobyl. However, that perhaps is a matter of fortune rather than of skilled administration.
We have been too furtive. In the past decade we have seen example after example of the use of public resources for unnecessary secrecy. I learned the other day that there are techniques and staff in the public service in various Government Departments devoted to detecting photocopies of pieces of paper. That causes one to wonder sometimes about the Minister's hesitation in incurring expenditure on matters which are perhaps far more in the public good.
I believe that the new clause is a good one. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to it, because with new clause 11 have been selected Government amendments Nos. 2 and 28. The Minister will recall that, in Committee, he appeared to be slightly persuaded when I moved

amendments on safety. I hope that in the weeks since those debates, he has recognised that he appeared to be moving towards a sympathy with safety. If he has, perhaps when the House approves Government amendments Nos. 2 and 28, he will allow new clause 11 to go through as well.

Mr. Morgan: A key factor in Government amendments Nos. 2 and 28—I quote amendment No. 28 as an example—is
protecting the public from dangers arising from the generation, transmission or supply of electricity".
We understand that that is to cover also the dangers that arise from the disposal of the waste products on the nuclear side of the industry and those arising from generation.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is right to make that assumption. Perhaps the Minister will make that point clear when he replies.
I can see nothing wrong with the new clause except, as I have said, that it would have been useful if it had included specific reference to the people employed in the industry rather than simply assuming that they would be covered by the reference to members of the public.
I am not too worried about the reference to those who will serve on the committees, largely because I am suspicious of the sort of people who nowadays are appointed to quangos. They are more likely to embarrass or injure themselves than us. I am, however, concerned about the public good.
I had no intention of referring to those who live underneath transmission lines but, when I saw a scare story reported in a newspaper some time ago, I recall that I asked our local medical officer of health if it would be possible to carry out a survey. The statistical base would need to be a great deal larger than would have been possible in my local locality and therefore, as far as I know, no study has been undertaken.
Now that the matter has been mentioned in the House, the Minister had better be prepared to respond fully. If he cannot do so tonight, I have no doubt that the matter will be raised in another place. There is a possibility that more scare stories may develop and, if reassurance is justified, it would be as well for that reassurance to be offered. If it is not justified, perhaps a little more information should be given.
I recall the considerable strain and anger that existed, and may still exist, in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Saarland as a result of the anxieties of the people living quite close the French border, about French secrecy. We do not have any national or territorial boundaries with other countries, so we must contain our anxieties and strain within our island. I believe that the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Gordon are justified and those who live in the proximity of a power station —it need not be nuclear—are anxious.
There is no reason why the Government should be furtive or secretive or seek to deny information. Information should be available if only because of the 1957 episode. Never again should people be denied information that is of direct relevance to their health and their other interests. For that reason I am happy to support the new clause. I only wish that it covered the employees of the nuclear industry.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: I had not intended to contribute to the debate, but the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made a fair point when he moved the new clause.
We have already been told that the Government are unlikely to respond to any attempts to amend the Bill, but the hon. Member for Gordon raised the important issue of safety. We must all be safety-conscious, as that is the only way in which to deal with problems. Any laxity in safety means that we are put in peril. The Government must reflect on the experience of previous legislation. It is not good enough for something permissive to be written into legislation. If the argument advanced is right and proper, any obligations should be mandatory. In that way there is no argument. I hope that the Minister will not fall back on the excuse of previous Governments and decide that what is written into the Bill should be permissive.
The only weakness in the new clause—this is not meant as a criticism—is that the employees of the industry are not included. They are not just employees, but members of the public. Their knowledge would help to achieve the aims set out in the new clause.
The new clause is important because of the defensive history of the thermal nuclear power industry. It has spent a lot of time and effort to promote the idea that everything is all right and that there is no danger. It has claimed that, technologically, everything is perfect. The possibilities of an accident have been worked out statistically, but, as the hon. Member for Gordon has said, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have put paid to those efforts. Human weakness can always occur.
We are still suffering the effects of Chernobyl in Scotland. During last night's debate a Conservative Member made an absurd intervention during my speech and spoke about radiation from coal. I have never heard of any coal mine being responsible for radiation for year after year. I was in Norway at the time of the Chernobyl incident and when I was told that its reindeer herd had had to be slaughtered I was extremely sad.
The hon. Member for Gordon is right to say that the nuclear power industry has always been extremely defensive. I know of people who earn their livelihoods from statistics. If a construction is undertaken, people can calculate with amazing accuracy how many people are likely to be killed at the building site if the construction continues for a couple of years. As a consequence of our North sea oil explorations, people are now able to calculate, statistically, how many people are likely to be killed as a result of that exploration. As legislators we do not appreciate that when we approve some legislation it means that, inevitably, people will be killed as a consequence.
I am all in favour of technology and I am not against nuclear power in the sense that it represents new technology. It is against my background to be against new technology because I have always said, "If new technology can do the job, why should men's backs be broken?" The silliest thing that I ever heard in my life was the claim that hard work never killed anyone. I live in a small mining village and in the cemetery I could point out those individuals who died as a consequence of hard work. When people say that hard work never killed anyone, it generally means that they have never done any hard work in their lives.
8.45 pm
Forty years ago I was employed in the rail industry for a short time. About a month ago I had the great privilege of driving a diesel train—I had only driven steam trains. The first thing I asked was where the dead man's brake was, but, although we have such brakes, accidents still happen. Human error still occurs. Such error can arise in the nuclear power industry and it is not valid to argue that everything is perfect and every effort has been made to make things safe—experience tells us otherwise. Many people in many industries spend a great deal of time trying to make those industries as technologically safe as possible, but the human factor must always be taken into account.
I am anything but impressed by thermal nuclear power, as I believe that it carries built-in hazards. However, the new clause could help the nuclear power industry. We should reveal all and we should tell people what has happened. We should make them even more safety-conscious and, above all, those who work in the industry should be taken into the confidence of those who run it. Those employees will not brook any people who are anti their industry. They want to make it work and they believe in it.
I hope that the Minister will not use the old argument about making such things permissive. If we really agree with the hon. Member for Gordon, the legislation should be mandatory and not permissive.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) about permissiveness as opposed to something that is mandatory. I was reminded of what was said today by the Leader of the House. He used a time-honoured phrase about the Prime Minister making herself available to Gorbachev. Is that what my hon. Friend means by permissiveness? I have a picture in my mind, but I had better not take that matter any further.
I am absolutely certain that the provisions of the Bill must be mandatory if it is to mean anything in terms of giving power and rights to consumers. Our experience of permissive local government legislation in particular has made us aware of the pitfalls. My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend mentioned the effects of Chernobyl and the way in which they are still being felt in Scotland, let alone in Wales and other parts of Great Britain. I remember that incident clearly. Two or three days after it we heard that the radioactive cloud was making its way up the Thames estuary—there was a report on the "Today" programme about it. That morning there was a large demonstration outside the Department of Energy. The leading wet, now the so-called Secretary of State for Wales, was in charge of energy at that time. The Friends of the Earth were drawing attention to the fact that he had said that nuclear power was the safest form of energy known to man. People were scared. It is the only time that I can recall men and women, young and old, coming towards us, snatching the leaflets out of our hands so that they would know what effects Chernobyl might have.
Once that radioactive cloud went up into the sky it belonged not to Russia or to America but to mother nature, and it went the way that the wind blew. People were scared stiff about the consequences. I remember one woman standing about five yards away, who had her hand


out waiting to grab a leaflet. I said to her, "It is all right; the cloud is moving away; it is behind you. If you keep moving the other way you can race it if you get as far as Reading." Off she went, scared stiff. That is what nuclear power means to people when there is a disaster like Chernobyl.
Considering the matter from that point of view, I wonder what powers the director general will have. If there were explosions, could he do anything to protect consumers and their rights? Let us suppose that the director general had to deal with something less important. Let us suppose that he was confronted by four Tory Members of Parliament who told him that they had heard on the grapevine that the new organisation running nuclear power—the new "opoly", or whatever it is called —had decided to dump low-level nuclear waste in their constituencies. Let us suppose that those four Members included a Cabinet Minister, perhaps the Leader of the House, and a junior Minister at the Home Office because they were to have low-level nuclear waste dumped in their areas.
Accountability is to be taken from the public sector and handed over to the private sector with a bit of a director general in charge who is to protect the rights of consumers. What would happen if the Leader of the House was complaining about the dumping of low-level waste in his constituency because he had had 5,000 letters from people taking a NIMBY attitude, people whom we might loosely call clones of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Under market force operations, what powers would the director general have in those circumstances? As we all know, similar proposals were made some time ago. Because we were coming up to a general election, and because there was an umbilical cord between the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House and other Tory Members, they managed to get rid of those dumping grounds.
The same process will be repeated over and over again, especially as power stations are to be decommissioned. The companies will have to find somewhere to put the muck. The director general will be a Tory; there is no doubt about that. The Prime Minister will ask, is he or she one of us? Whatever the Secretary of State says, the director general will go along with it because he will be in the Prime Minister's pocket. So the director general—good Tory that he will be—will say, "I will tell you what we will do; we will make sure that the waste is dumped in Labour areas." Perhaps it will be dumped in Liberal areas, or it could go into the areas represented by the new-fangled party, the party that dare not speak its name, the one that changes its name every five months.
So the director general will say that the waste may be dumped in old mines, perhaps in Derbyshire, Yorkshire or south Wales. He will suggest that the rubbish should be put in those areas. That is what I can see happening. That is why it is essential that there are mandatory powers.

Mr. Hardy: Has not my hon. Friend noticied over the last two or three years that there has been remarkable uniformity and solidarity on the Government Benches? Does not he suspect that the Government Chief Whip has been using that as a threat to maintain discipline in Government ranks?

Mr. Skinner: The Government have used some new-fangled ideas and some old-fangled bullying since the

Prime Minister came to power. They have shop stewards on the door when we are voting. They may call them Whips, but they are really shop stewards. They hustle the Government Back Benchers in. Every so often they say, "If you behave yourself, we will give you a bisque." That is French for being absent without leave. It is a night off to do research or whatever they have to do in the course of those odd hours.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Clearly the hon. Gentleman is not a croquet player; otherwise, he would know that a bisque is a free go for an inferior player.

Mr. Skinner: Well, I never. Here am I, in this mirror image of the Eton debating society, and I have got the bisque wrong. Oh, what a disaster. Do I feel so small, so belittled that I do not know the croquet term "bisque"? I will tell hon. Members what I do know. I know that the Tories will trot through the Lobby behind him when the Minister decides to force a vote on the issue. They will be hustled in by the Tory shop stewards on the door. They will go through the hoop, or the French equivalent of the hoop—I have no doubt that there is a croquet term for that as well.
One of the most alarming things about all this is that the consumer has seen what can happen when parts of the public sector are privatised or when there is loose control by the Tory Government of the public sector. It means that less money is spent on safety and security. We have seen it at the airports; we have seen what it has meant for human life. There will be less public control. The entrepreneurs and those who operate the market forces will be in charge of nuclear power. The state will not be able to exert its influence. Even though we are talking about a small point we need a mandatory provision that gives proper rights to consumers.
Those are my few observations on the matter. I believe that the Bill will be looked upon in future as a disaster. People will reflect upon it and say. "What were the Government playing at? Why was a public utility responsible for nuclear power left to the whims of those who are in it to make money hand over fist and to line the pockets of the friends of the Tory party?" It would be a small price to pay if the Government were to accept the amendments and make sure that the Bill includes a mandatory provision.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Like other hon. Members, the Government attach great importance to maintaining the industry's high safety standards. That is why we undertook in Committee to examine safety questions carefully and to come forward, if necessary, with further safeguards. That is what lies behind Government amendments Nos. 2 and 28 to which only brief reference has been made by Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). Opposition Members were rather churlish. We spent much time in Committee considering safety matters. As a result of those deliberations the Government have proposed amendments. They are the product of good work in Committee. I would have thought that Opposition Members would at least have made a passing reference to them.
I shall first refer to the two questions raised by the hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). The hon. Member for Bolsworthy, or


rather for Bolsover—Bolsworthy may be the right expression since we have been talking about croquet—mentioned mother nature and rightly said that nuclear incidents are international. The Government have signed an international convention on the notification of nuclear incidents under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency and will ask Parliament to ratify that in the Atomic Energy Bill that the Leader of the House announced that we would debate next Thursday. On the basis of what Opposition Members have said tonight, I hope that they will vote in favour of the Atomic Energy Bill, of which a major part is the ratification of that convention. I hope that that partly explains what the Government have done, in answer to the important point raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) looks worried. Perhaps he has not yet geared up to dealing with the Bill. Perhaps I have just given him his first warning of it.

9 pm

Mr. Barron: I am geared up. What surprises me about the Atomic Energy Bill is that the Minister assumes that we shall not vote against it.

Mr. Spicer: I said that I assumed on the basis of the arguments and very good points which have been made by Opposition Members tonight, that because the Bill will meet those reasonable worries, the hon. Member for Rother Valley would vote in favour of it.
In answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, the responsibility for the safety of nuclear waste and nuclear power stations generally is a matter for the operators of the stations, acting under the regulations, guidelines and monitoring of the nuclear installations inspectorate and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. That is how safety regulations apply in this country.

Mr. Hardy: The Minister mentioned that I had referred to Government amendments Nos. 2 and 28. He will also recall that I expressed slight criticism of new clause 11 because it did not refer to employees of the industry. The same point could be made about Government amendments Nos. 2 and 28 because they refer to the public. The Minister will recall that when I took part in this debate in Committee, I made reference to employees in the industry. Will he assure the House that the new clauses will refer to employees of the industry as well as to members of the general public?

Mr. Spicer: I am checking the precise answer to that question but I am pretty certain that I can give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman. I want to be absolutely clear and I am just awaiting confirmation of that.
In our view, new clause 11 is not the sensible way to approach this extremely important—we are all agreed on this—issue of safety. By implication, it gives the primary responsibility for the safety of the general public to the director. In the Bill, it is implicit that the responsibility for safety is covered by the electricity supply regulations, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and other Acts and secondary legislation which deal with specific aspects of safety. Those include the Factories Act 1961 and the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1985. Within the broad panoply of these

health and safety regulations it is right that the director and the Secretary of State should take safety into account as a major factor when the economic regime and regulation is set. That is the key issue and that is why amendment No. 2 specifically requires that the duties and functions of both the Secretary of State and the director should be exercised in the manner best calculated to protect the public from dangers arising from the generation, transmission and supply of electricity. The need to comply with that duty will clearly be a factor in the director's use of information powers under clause 44. That partly answers the question of the hon. Member for Wentworth.

Mr. Eadie: I talked about permissive and mandatory legislation. Am I to assume that the Minister is telling us that the director of information will have discretionary powers. The thrust of our argument is that the public, and employees of the industry, are entitled to know where they stand. Is not the Minister contradicting that if he says that the director is to have certain discretionary powers?

Mr. Spicer: All I have said is that the health and safety regime is laid down by a mass of parliamentary legislation and that we must ensure that our amendments achieve what they are intended to achieve; that nothing that the director—who is concerned primarily with economic and not safety regulations—does when applying his economic regulation duties, conflicts with the safety and health regime which exists by statute. In the Bill we must make it absolutely clear that, when assessing the duties of the director, they do not conflict with existing legislation which is outside the Bill.

Mr. Morgan: rose—

Mr. Spicer: Before I give way I must not forget to tell the hon. Member for Wentworth that clause 3 (3) and the health and safety at work regulations cover employees.

Mr. Morgan: I wonder whether the Minister has seriously considered the practicalities of what he is saying—that the director will be mostly concerned with the economic and not safety regulations, and that the two interests should not conflict. What about when they do? Last night the Secretary of State mentioned the possibility of renegotiating the BNFL contract on reprocessing with National Power. One way to do that would be so that BNFL did not reprocess some of the fuel from the AGRs but, instead, left it for storage. National Power would say that it would save money by doing that. Would the director have the right to say that he did not consider that safe?

Mr. Spicer: The Government amendments emphasise that the director will have to bear in mind public safety at all times when making his decisions. These amendments will have additional effects. When clause 3 was first discussed in Committee, it was suggested that the duties of the director and the Secretary of State were deficient because they did not refer specifically to safety. However, that concern is met by amendment No. 2 which underlines the duties of the Secretary of State and the director to consider safety at all times.
At present, the general framework for safety in the electricity industry is set by the electricity supply regulations. The Government were responsible for instituting the first full-scale revision of those regulations


for 50 years, culminating in the issue of new, regulations last year. Those regulations established a general framework of standards. The key point in answer to the hon. Member for Gordon is that only those with expert knowledge of a particular site or installation and with responsibility for its operation can determine the precise safety measures required under the general regulation. That is established practice in Britain for dealing with safety. That is why the first responsibility must and does rest with the industry.
Those responsibilities are laid down in an array of primary and secondary legislation and that is further supported by the common law on matters such as the duty of care under the law of negligence. None of that will change with the passage of the Bill. That is the answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). Licence holders and those operating under exemptions will have to act in accordance with the same regime that has resulted in the current high standards of safety in the industry.
The Bill provides for the continuation of the existing electricity supply regulations and clause 27 enables the regulations to be added to or revised as necessary.
In Committee there seemed to be some doubt about the precise purpose of clause 27. Amendment No. 28 is designed to put its purpose beyond doubt. It makes it explicit that regulations made under the clause can include those concerned directly with safety aspects of the industry's operations and, in particular, the protection of the public.
I hope that, having explained the philosophy of not only the electricity industry but other industries with which I have been concerned—for example, the aviation industry, where the primary duty is placed upon the operator within the standards laid down—we have made it clear that nothing done under the Bill, in particular under the terms laid down for the duties of the regulator, conflict with the standards, regulations and legislation laid down to protect safety, which all agree is paramount. I hope that, on the basis of that explanation, the hon. Member for Gordon will feel able to withdraw his new clause.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Minister has dealt with the Government amendments rather than with my new clause. I accept that amendments Nos. 2 and 28 improve the Bill and that they are a response to our debates in Committee. But they do not relate to the points that I and other hon. Members have raised tonight. The Minister has essentially debated the quality of safety inspection and enforcement under the licences proposed by the Bill, whereas we are talking about the public's right to have information about safety and the directors' responsibility to ensure access to that information when it is needed.
I intended my new clause to include employees within the industry because they have a particular right to information. The new clause can include them, but it might have been better if it had specifically done so.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) referred to reindeer in Scandinavia suffering from the fallout from Chernobyl. That is the sort of information that is important. Reindeer's metabolism enables them to operate efficiently in the Arctic tundra, but it also makes them especially vulnerable to radiation. They convert food quickly so that the build-up of radiation in their natural food, the tundra moss, affects them much more intensely than other animals. That is the kind of information to

which the public are entitled and it was the kind of information that was not available in any clear or consistent form at the time of the Chernobyl disaster.
Many hon. Members will recall the confusing information that came from the Government at that time. The Scottish Office said that milk was not safe to drink, then that it was safe and then that it was not safe. That did not inspire public confidence and did not provide the important and relevant information.
However, the essential point is that the Minister is saying that the director should not impinge on safety; that the new regime will ensure that there is a specific responsibility to have due regard to safety. We say that the public and those working in the industry should have the director's support to get access to information that they need to enable them to make decisions. The Minister is effectively arguing that the public have to trust the experts who are entrusted with safety and have no right to know what the experts are talking about. In other words, they have no right to explanations in the kind of language that people can understand which show exactly what is expected of them, the action open to them and to whom they can turn to obtain the relevant explanation of expert information.
9.15 pm
Helpful as they are, the Government's amendments are not relevant to my new clause, without which the Bill will be substantially weakened because consumer committees and the public do not have the right of access to essential information. All the anxieties and reservations that many of us have had about the industry during the past 20 years are passing unanswered into the private sector. If we could not get the information that we needed when the industry was in the public sector, accountable through Ministers to the House, what chance have we of getting it through a private commercial organisation from which the director has no power to demand such information on behalf of the consumer committees or the public? The answer is that we have no chance of doing so. I intend to force my new clause to a Division and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will support it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 77, Noes 197.

Divison No. 143]
[9.15 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fearn, Ronald


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Foster, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Foulkes, George


Beith, A. J.
Galbraith, Sam


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bermingham, Gerald
Golding, Mrs Llin


Blair, Tony
Hardy, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Haynes, Frank


Buckley, George J.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Home Robertson, John


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hood, Jimmy


Cohen, Harry
Howells, Geraint


Cox, Tom
Hoyle, Doug


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dewar, Donald
Illsley, Eric


Dixon, Don
Johnston, Sir Russell


Doran, Frank
Kennedy, Charles


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eadie, Alexander
McAllion, John


Eastham, Ken
McAvoy, Thomas


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Macdonald, Calum A.






McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Skinner, Dennis


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Spearing, Nigel


Maxton, John
Stott, Roger


Meale, Alan
Strang, Gavin


Michle, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wall, Pat


Morgan, Rhodri
Wareing, Robert N.


Morley, Elliott
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Patchett, Terry
Winnick, David


Pike, Peter L.



Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Radice, Giles
Mr. James Wallace and Mr. Richard Livsey.


Robertson, George



Robinson, Geoffrey





NOES


Adley, Robert
Freeman, Roger


Aitken, Jonathan
Fry, Peter


Amess, David
Gale, Roger


Amos, Alan
Gardiner, George


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Ashby, David
Gill, Christopher


Atkinson, David
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Goodlad, Alastair


Baldry, Tony
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gow, Ian


Batiste, Spencer
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Benyon, W.
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gregory, Conal


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Grist, Ian


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Body, Sir Richard
Hague, William


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Boswell, Tim
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bottomley, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hanley, Jeremy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Harris, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Brazier, Julian
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Bright, Graham
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hunter, Andrew


Browne, John (Winchester)
Irvine, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Jack, Michael


Burns, Simon
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Burt, Alistair
Kirkhope, Timothy


Butterfill, John
Knapman, Roger


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knowles, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Carttiss, Michael
Lang, Ian


Cash, William
Latham, Michael


Conway, Derek
Lawrence, Ivan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lightbown, David


Cope, Rt Hon John
Lilley, Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Cran, James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lord, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Day, Stephen
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Dorrell, Stephen
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Maclean, David


Dover, Den
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Durant, Tony
Malins, Humfrey


Dykes, Hugh
Mans, Keith


Evennett, David
Maples, John


Fallon, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Favell, Tony
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maude, Hon Francis


Fishburn, John Dudley
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fookes, Dame Janet
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Forman, Nigel
Miller, Sir Hal


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mills, Iain


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Franks, Cecil
Mitchell, Sir David





Morrison, Sir Charles
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Speller, Tony


Moss, Malcolm
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mudd, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Neale, Gerrard
Squire, Robin


Needham, Richard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Nelson, Anthony
Stern, Michael


Neubert, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Norris, Steve
Sumberg, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Summerson, Hugo


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Page, Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Paice, James
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Patnick, Irvine
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tracey, Richard


Powell, William (Corby)
Tredinnick, David


Rathbone, Tim
Trippier, David


Redwood, John
Trotter, Neville


Riddick, Graham
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Roe, Mrs Marion
Ward, John


Rost, Peter
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Warren, Kenneth


Ryder, Richard
Watts, John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wheeler, John


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wilshire, David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wood, Timothy


Shelton, Sir William



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.


Sims, Roger



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

CONSUMERS' COMMITTEES

Mr. Barron: I beg to move amendment No. 121, in page 2, line 23, after "shall", insert
seek to ensure that the committee is representative of local consumer interests and geographical areas and shall".

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 114, in page 2, line 25, at end insert
The Scottish Committees shall include a representative of each island and regional authority.".

Mr. Barron: We had quite a lengthy debate in Committee on this matter, and this is a further attempt to ensure that the members of the consumer committees are really representative of the interests of local consumers. During the debate in Committee, the Minister showed a lack of understanding of exactly what concerns people who represent the interests of consumers. I quoted to him a brief that had been given, as I understand it, to all hon. Members by the Consumers Association, a respected body which has worked for many years promoting the interests and rights of consumers. It commented directly on the wording and on the likely operation of the clause:
We do not agree with the 'desirability of appointing a person who has experience of, and has shown capacity in, matters relevant to the provision of electrical services"'
that is the wording that we, too, should like to change with this amendment—


Part 1 Clause 2 Subsection 4. This is a recipe for ensuring that the committees are 'captured' by the industries they are meant to be supervising.
Opposition Members, having been through the Bill in Committee, have little confidence that the vested interests of the electricity supply industry will be removed by clause 2 if it is left unamended.
Indeed, in Committee the Minister said:
we see the committees not like such bodies in the past, which have stood on the touchline of the regulatory process, but as an integrated part of that process with well-defined roles." —[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12 January 1989; c. 122.]
9.30 pm
We believe that, in a general sense, the committees may be far too integrated if their members do not directly represent consumer interests. Consumer interests are not necessarily the interests of the electricity supply industry. We are anxious, therefore, that the committees should not be dominated by the industry's needs or the regulator's demands. Regulations and consumer advocacy are not the same and we must ensure that the committees are vigorously independent. We tried throughout to get financial independence for these committees so that they would have their own offices in the different areas. On each occasion we failed and were not backed by the Minister. So we return to say to him that we are unhappy with the make-up of the consumer committees. What he asks for in the clause is not necessarily in the interest of the consumer.
We hope that the Minister has taken the opportunity in the few short weeks since we left clause 2 in Committee to look in greater detail at the issue. I look forward to hearing what he has to say. This looks a bit wider than the earlier debate and we hope that the Bill will be amended so that it, too, will be a bit wider than what we have in front of us.

Mr. Wallace: Amendment No. 114 is in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. In many respects, albeit in a Scottish context, it seeks to do much the same as the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron).
The composition of the proposed committees requires the director to have regard to people who have experience of the provision of electricity supply services. This seems to be a very odd requirement considering that the committees, one assumes, are to represent the interests of consumers. While some passing knowledge is obviously required, many consumers do not have the first idea how their electricity supply gets to them but have far more than a passing interest in having a regular, secure supply. These are the people whose interests the consumers' committees should be protecting.
If one looks at the responsibility and functions of consumers' committees, one finds, in clause 47, that they have, among other responsibilities, a duty to keep under review matters affecting the interests of consumers of electricity supplied to premises in the committee's areas. My constituency is in the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board area. It is a vast area and my constituency is itself quite vast, with particular problems that apply to islands areas. For a start, Shetland is not connected to the national grid. Its main electricity supply comes from a diesel-generated power station in Lerwick. It has in places such as Fair Isle a unique form of supply which is dependent on wind power—and all credit to the

hydro-electric board that it has set this up. But there are very particular problems relating to an area with particular needs.
Our reasonable request is that people from each geographical area— we have defined that in terms of local authority areas, because that is a neat way of doing it—should be on the consumers' committees. It is only people from specific areas who have first-hand experience of circumstances and conditions in different parts of the country and who know what the needs of these areas are.
These are very modest proposals and if the Government accepted the amendments it would show that they are genuinely interested in the rights and interests of the consumers. I do not see that there is anything fundamental at stake with regard to the overall strategy of the Bill. By conceding the amendments they would prove that they have the interests of consumers at heart and I hope that the Minister will give us a positive response.

Mr. Hardy: I shall be brief. I want to say a word or two in criticism of the "one of us" syndrome which is far too prevalent today in British political life. I am not at all happy about many of the appointments made by the Government. I recall not very long ago pursuing a regional aid case in my constituency. It was referred to the Department of Trade and Industry's advisory committee which found against my constituency proposal. Then I discovered that a significant proportion of the people involved had no connection with my region. I had to advise some constituents in fair rent cases not to appeal because I discovered that a rent tribunal was excessively representative of families of estate agents and solicitors, most of whom may well have been politically sensitive and acceptable to Treasury Ministers.
We have seen the proliferation of Government sympathisers in the health authorities and a tremendous decline in the number of appointments of people who do not share the ideology that is currently fashionable in the Government. I am not restricting my criticism to matters that affect only Opposition Members because some matters would not be acceptable to those who control the destiny of this nation.
We need to have an assurance from Ministers that the principal qualifications of those required to serve on consumer committees is not just the knowledge of what one does with an electric light switch, possession of a Conservative party card and adherence to the currently popular fashion in the Conservative party. I hope that the interests of the consumer will be well served and that they will receive priority over the interests of the political party in power.

Mr. Haynes: I remember the debate in Committee on this matter and on that occasion we were not at all satisfied. That is why we have come back to the issue. We are looking for satisfaction in this debate. The Government brag that the Bill is in the interests of the consumer. If that is the case, why does not the Minister cough up? We are asking him straightforwardly for proper representation for the consumer on these bodies. [Interruption.] I wish that he would not speak to his Parliamentary Private Secretary while I am trying to make an important point. If the Minister's ears were a bit larger, he might hear what was being said.
We are looking for fairness for the consumer. We do not want the committees loaded with Tories. We want


fairness across the board. The Minister must not load the committees with Tory mouthpieces, but that will happen if we are not careful. I hope that he takes on board what is being said and especially what I am saying. I shall probably have more to say later during the evening or the morning, but I want the Minister to understand quite clearly that I am speaking on behalf of the people that I represent. They want a fair crack of the whip for the consumer. I hope that the Minister will come across and give us what we are looking for because he did not do that upstairs.

Mr. John Maxton: It is necessary to say a word or two about the Scottish consultative committees and the consumer committees that will be established by the Bill. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has said, there is a marginally different situation in the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. That board and the new company will have a geographical area that is larger in terms of length but not in terms of population than from the north of England to Land's End. It will extend from Campbeltown in the south, which is almost, but not quite, the most southerly point in Scotland—some people might say that it is almost in Northern Ireland—right up to the most northerly house connected to the electricity supply in Unst, in Shetland.
That is an enormous geographical spread and places on the Government a responsibility, which so far they have not met, to ensure that that geographical distance is properly represented on the committee. The two amendments make some effort to achieve that. Any committee will have a difficult job to do better than the present North of Scotland Consultative Council, which I believe is the best of the councils at advising us about the needs of its area. The briefings from that council have been first-class.
The new consumers' committees must properly represent an area's consumers. The committee members should not be appointed as a result of their political interests or because of any connections with the electricity supply industry. In Scotland we have the advantage because the Government are rapidly running out of Tories to put on those committees in Scotland. The Government are trying desperately, but there are not many Tories left there and the few that are left are easily recognisable. We have no great problem in saying that such and such is a political appointment because that person is a Tory. In fact, there is a joke about the man in a paper hat who is the only Tory left in Scotland.
The consumers' committees in Scotland must represent the consumers. I would prefer it if there were legal constraints on the consumers' committees under the director to ensure that local committees are appointed in each of the areas covered by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board to ensure local representation.
Even if the committees have proper representation, the committee members will have problems meeting regularly. It will be extremely difficult for anyone appointed to the committees to travel from Campbeltown to Perth or Inverness or from Unst to Inverness. The Minister must assure us that there will be no political appointments to the committees and that people will not be appointed because they have connections with the electricity supply industry. The committee members should be genuine consumers

who know more about an area and its problems than about electricity supply. I hope that the Minister will respond to my points.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Clause 2 provides for consumers' committees to be attached to each public electricity supplier in the United Kingdom. That will ensure that the regional dimension, as set out in the amendments is achieved. In response to the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), I can state that that includes the north of Scotland dimension which will have its own consumers' committee.
We are not in favour of providing for special pre-defined interest groups, regional or otherwise. In future, we want to see the appointment of people who, if possible, know something about the electricity industry, and that is defined in clause 2(4). That answers points raised by the hon. Members for Cathcart, for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). The members of the committee will be appointed by the director.
I cannot promise that there will be no Conservatives on the committees. There are so many Conservatives these days and there will be more and more in Scotland. The director will have a very large catchment area to choose from and I am sure that there will be many Conservatives on those committees. However, I assure the House that the appointments will be made by the independent director and not by the Government. That is a major new feature of the Bill and I am happy to give that assurance. We have placed the whole process more at arm's length from the Government. [Interruption.] I can see that many Opposition Members would like to intervene. Let us have a little fun; I will give way to the hon. Member for Ashfield.

Mr. Haynes: I resent that remark. The Minister is trying to be funny. He will regret that. I warn the Minister now: he should not be clever.
I want to know whether the Minister or the Department will have any influence on the director, as to who serves on the committees. If one looks at other such bodies, one finds that the Government always have their grubby hands on appointments.

Mr. Spicer: I happily give the hon. Gentleman a precise answer to his fair question. Committee chairmen will be appointed with the consent of the Secretary of State, but committee members will be appointed by the directors. The general membership of the committees will be independently appointed. I am pleased to give the House that assurance. The hon. Members for Wentworth and for Cathcart made an important point that the Government completely concede, which is that appointments to the committees should be made more independent and further removed from the Government. We agree completely, and that is why we are changing the Bill.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister responded to the points made by myself and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) by saying that at least the North of Scotland board will have a committee attached to it. Will he confirm that as the Bill stands, the membership of the committee, comprising between 10 and 20 persons, could all come from Glasgow—outwith the area served by


the board? Far from different parts of a vast area being represented, it is theoretically possible that not one geographical area under the board's control will be represented.

Mr. Spicer: No doubt that is theoretically possible. We are saying not that we want specialist groups predetermined, but that the sort of people who will represent consumer interests should be a matter for the director within the terms of the Bill. If there is such a difference between the characteristics of areas as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it would make sense, in providing proper consumer representation, to take geographical interests into account. However, we do not want to make that a statutory obligation. Somebody must appoint the members of the committee.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister means that the Government wish to abdicate responsibility.

Mr. Spicer: That is the way that the hon. Gentleman chooses to put it, but I suggest that he has a word with the hon. Members for Wentworth and for Cathcart. Although they represent different parties, they made a strong point. In response, I gave an assurance that there will not be political involvement in appointments, but that they will be the responsibility of the independent director. I believe that that meets the general view of the House that such an arrangement is a good thing.
The reason why, in future, consumers' committees will be an integral part of the regulatory process is clear, and it is one about which we feel strongly. I say in response to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) that one of the radical reforms introduced in the Bill is that there will no longer be merely lobbying organisations shouting their views from outside the industry—on a previous occasion, I used the phrase "from the touchline"—which is largely how the existing consumer committees operate. Under the new arrangements, they will be part of the regulatory body.
In that way, we are enormously strengthening the effectiveness of consumer representatives' involvement in the industry's development. I remind the House that the Electricity Consumers Council thoroughly approves of that new arrangement. It is a radical and great improvement in the involvement of consumer representatives in the affairs of a large industry. I hope that the House welcomes the new structure and accepts the points that I have made. Therefore, I hope that the amendment is withdrawn.

Mr. Barron: The amendment cannot and will not be withdrawn. The Minister continues to fall into the trap that he fell into in Committee. He regards regulation and consumerism as the same thing. That is not the case. I have put not only my arguments but those of consumer organisations which, for many decades, have attempted to represent consumers' interests. They say that the proposed structure of the consumers' committees is not necessarily right. It was said in Committee—I will not say that the Minister said it—that anybody who receives electricity is an electricity consumer. I argued that the chairman of an electricity board receives electricity and is an electricity consumer. But his idea of electricity and the consumption of electricity is different from that of his neighbour up the

road who also receives electricity, uses it as a domestic consumer, and pays a quarterly bill. He has a different outlook on the electricity industry.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he at least accepts that the Electricity Consumers Council has thoroughly approved the new arrangements?

Mr. Barron: Independent consumer bodies are not in a position to be the turkeys who vote for Christmas. Opposition Members would sooner listen to the people who, week in and week out, month in and month out, and year in and year out, have represented people who wanted help and have found the electricity supply industry lacking. We will debate that matter when we talk about fuel poverty. Those people have encountered the problems of consumers within the electricity supply industry. Opposition Members are not happy with the situation.
Once again, as he did in Committee, the Minister has dismissed the issue and said that those who are involved in regulation are therefore involved in the interests of consumers. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) is present. After he made his 20-minute speech, I said that I would refer to him later. Because of his presence on this occasion, I will put the amendment to the vote to see whether hon. Members are in favour of consumers' rights.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 71, Noes 174.

Division No. 144]
[9.52 pm


AYES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Illsley, Eric


Barron, Kevin
Johnston, Sir Russell


Beith, A. J.
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Kennedy, Charles


Bermingham, Gerald
Livsey, Richard


Blair, Tony
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McAllion, John


Buckley, George J.
McAvoy, Thomas


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
McFall, John


Cohen, Harry
McLeish, Henry


Cox, Tom
Maxton, John


Cryer, Bob
Meale, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dewar, Donald
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Dixon, Don
Morgan, Rhodri


Doran, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.


Eadie, Alexander
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Prescott, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Radice, Giles


Fearn, Ronald
Richardson, Jo


Foster, Derek
Robertson, George


Foulkes, George
Skinner, Dennis


Fyfe, Maria
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Galbraith, Sam
Soley, Clive


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Spearing, Nigel


Golding, Mrs Llin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Wallace, James


Hardy, Peter
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Haynes, Frank
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Home Robertson, John



Hood, Jimmy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howells, Geraint
Mr. Robert N. Wareing and Mr. Allen McKay.


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)



Hoyle, Doug





NOES


Adley, Robert
Amos, Alan


Aitken, Jonathan
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Amess, David
Ashby, David






Atkinson, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Lang, Ian


Baldry, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan


Batiste, Spencer
Lee, John (Pendle)


Benyon, W.
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Lilley, Peter


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Boswell, Tim
Lord, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Maclean, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Malins, Humfrey


Brazier, Julian
Mans, Keith


Bright, Graham
Maples, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Maude, Hon Francis


Browne, John (Winchester)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Buck, Sir Antony
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Burns, Simon
Miller, Sir Hal


Burt, Alistair
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Butterfill, John
Mitchell, Sir David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Carrington, Matthew
Morrison, Sir Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Cash, William
Moss, Malcolm


Chapman, Sydney
Mudd, David


Chope, Christopher
Neale, Gerrard


Conway, Derek
Needham, Richard


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Neubert, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Nicholls, Patrick


Cope, Rt Hon John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Cran, James
Norris, Steve


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Day, Stephen
Paice, James


Dorrell, Stephen
Patnick, Irvine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Dover, Den
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Durant, Tony
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Dykes, Hugh
Porter, David (Waveney)


Fallon, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Favell, Tony
Redwood, John


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Riddick, Graham


Fishburn, John Dudley
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Fookes, Dame Janet
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Forman, Nigel
Roe, Mrs Marion


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Rost, Peter


Fox, Sir Marcus
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Franks, Cecil
Ryder, Richard


Freeman, Roger
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Gale, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Gill, Christopher
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Shelton, Sir William


Goodlad, Alastair
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Shersby, Michael


Gow, Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Gregory, Conal
Speller, Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Grist, Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Squire, Robin


Hague, William
Stern, Michael


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Stevens, Lewis


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hanley, Jeremy
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Harris, David
Summerson, Hugo


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hunter, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Irvine, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Jack, Michael
Tredinnick, David


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Trippier, David


Kirkhope, Timothy
Trotter, Neville


Knapman, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Knowles, Michael
Waller, Gary





Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wilshire, David


Warren, Kenneth
Wood, Timothy


Watts, John



Wells, Bowen
Tellers for the Noes:


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Tom Sackville.


Wilkinson, John

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Electricity Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Clause 3

GENERAL DUTIES OF SECRETARY OF STATE AND DIRECTOR

Mr. Illsley: I beg to move amendment No. 134, in page 2, line 40, leave out
'able to finance the carrying on'
and insert
'financially and technically competent of undertaking'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Amendment No. 135, in page 2, line 43, after '(2)', insert '(3 and 4)'.

Government amendments Nos. 79 and 80, and the following amendments:

No. 131, in page 3, line 10, leave out 'thereby'.

No. 132, in page 3, line 12, leave out 'to such premises'.

No. 133, in page 3, line 24, after 'efficient', insert 'and
economic'.

No. 104, in page 3, line 28, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(4) In carrying out all their duties the Secretary of State and the Director General shall take into account, in particular, the needs of the low paid, those who are disabled and of pensionable age.'.

No. 146, in page 3, line 30, at end add—
'and in respect of subsection (3)(a)(ii) above, those who are medically dependent on electricity supply, and in respect of subsection (3)(a)(i) above, those on lower incomes.'.

Mr. Illsley: Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 have been tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and others. Amendment No. 134 relates to the duties laid upon the director in relation to licence holders. Among those duties, the director must ensure that a licence holder is able to finance the carrying on of the activities for which he is licensed. Our amendment seeks to introduce a requirement for technical competence as well as financial ability.
In view of recent events in the latter part of 1988 when a business man purchased a power station in South Wales, perhaps the clause itself could do with further strengthening when it comes to the character of the people who want to buy such stations and involve themselves in the industry. In an industry such as electricity generation, distribution and supply, there is an obvious need for the very highest standards of technical competence, not only on the part of the scientists and operatives employed in the industry but on the part of those who will be directly involved in making the financial, investment and planning decisions on behalf of the industry.
A phrase which was bandied about in Committee talked of the responsibility of "keeping the lights on", but there is a little more at stake than that. We have hospitals, schools, offices, factories, foundries, warehouses, mines and any form of building which houses an industry or an enterprise: all rely on a secure supply of electricity. It would be an act of the utmost criminal folly if the supply of electricity to any of these or the supply of electricity in general, together with the future planning and investment requirements of the supply industry, were to be jeopardised by the poor performance of the director in deciding on the financial or technical competence of those who were allowed to invest or take part in the industry.
Yet, as the Bill stands, anyone who can afford to set up in the industry can apply for a licence to do so. There are clauses, particularly clause 7, which impose conditions, but those conditions will be formulated by the director in conjunction with the Secretary of State. It is quite unthinkable that anyone without technical competence would attempt even to consider setting up in the industry, but towards the end of last year it appears that someone actually did so. A Mr. Casfikis purchased a power station in south Wales with the intention of running it. When further investigations were made into the purchase it was found that the gentleman was a man of straw.
If there are profits to be made from the industry, however, the profitable companies will be bought out by others. There will be mergers and takeovers. We have seen this week what can happen when a company decides that it will buy out another company. A major finance house carries out an inquiry into the bona fides of a particular company and a firm of City lawyers advises on the legal aspects. If it is anything like what happened with the House of Fraser, all hell breaks loose. If anything illustrates the dangers of clause 3 as it stands, with the director making the decisions on financial and technical competence, it is the fiasco of the sale of the House of Fraser.
In that case the investigations were undertaken by a City firm of financiers. What chance has the Director General of Electricity Supply in trying to judge the financial and technical competence of a company that wishes to come into the electricity supply industry when the City of London cannot do it? Obviously, in those circumstances a large responsibility is being placed on the shoulders of the director general.
In the private sector, the industry will be subject to takeovers and mergers. They will involve major companies without the slightest interest in electricity, let alone in the security or obligation of supply. The larger companies will consider a generating company as simply another part of their portfolios.
We can expect, too, takeovers from abroad. We can well understand, because of its financial situation, that Electricité de France would very much like to invest in our power companies. Obviously, it will be looking long and hard at what happens after privatisation. There will be indications of overseas takeovers by companies that this country finds, perhaps, offensive or unwanted. What remedy will there be? Those takeovers will take place. There will be nothing to stop them, other than such bodies as the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Office of Fair Trading. However, if those takeovers comply with the regulations, there will be nothing to stop them. I shall cite two examples of such takeovers in the

past year in my area. There was the takeover of Rowntree by Nestlé and, in my constituency, the takeover of the Redfearn glass firm by a Swedish company.
The electricity supply industry has 12 area boards and each area board covers a considerable area with a considerable number of consumers. Once those boards begin to be swallowed up by larger companies, obviously there will be a much smaller industry and there will be a move back towards the monopoly.
The structure, as it has been outlined in the White Paper and the Bill, might be put at jeopardy because of takeovers and mergers. Set out in the Bill is a horizontal structure with the separation of generation, distribution and supply. However, in future what will there be to stop the larger companies buying into other aspects of the industry—the supply and distribution sectors—or the suppliers coming back into generation to tie up the loose ends and moving us back into a system of vertical integration?
The area boards or the public electricity suppliers, as they will be known, will have power to have their own generation capabilities. We will therefore start from a small amount of vertical integration which could be increased by mergers of the area boards. We could also see —perish the thought—British Coal, if it is privatised, being bought by the electricity companies. We could see major consumers of electricity being purchased, which will again bring into question coal imports.
What prospects are there for the area boards? They will either be strong enough, or have the financial muscle, to stand alone after privatisation, or, if they have a large industrial customer base, they will stand threatened by the introduction of independent investors who will take away those large industrial customers and leave them at the mercy of the predators, the larger companies within the industry.
If, as we are led to believe, there are upwards of 20 companies ready and waiting to come into the industry, that threat is already there. We have yet to have names put to the 20 companies that have been talked about during the past three months. However, we will obviously take the Minister at his word and believe that the threat from those companies exists.
I shall cite two examples. There is the Yorkshire electricity board, which is my board, and the north eastern board, both of which have a large base of industrial consumers. If we compare those boards with the south eastern electricity board, the reverse is true. That board has a large domestic consumer base and obviously the new boards in the south-east will set off as being more attractive to investors. They will start off with a financial advantage because they will have locked-in customers—the domestic consumer, unlike the industrial consumer, cannot opt out and look to the private generator.
It is important to consider that 49·5 per cent. of the north-eastern board's customers are industrial and that industrial customers account for 52 per cent. of the Yorkshire electricity board's market. The one customer common to both those boards is the coal industry, which is a major consumer of electricity.
10.15 pm
With the introduction of coal and oil imports after privatisation, both aimed at taking away British Coal's share of the market, there will be a further knock-on effect in our areas. The area boards will lose their custom as we face further colliery closures.
The Government should reconsider clause 3, especially the duties of the director regarding the financial and technical competence of entrants into the industry. They should tighten the Bill to enable companies or area boards, such as Yorkshire and north-eastern, to fend off the takeover bids with which they are bound to be faced after privatisation.

Dr. Kim Howells: It is important to draw attention to the implications of those parts of the Bill that test the probability that licence holders will seek to secure their hold on particular parts of the market by expanding their operations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) has said, beyond the straightforward business of marketing and selling electricity. We are talking about area boards—licence holders—six of which have annual turnovers of more than £1 billion. Even the smallest, the south Wales board, has an annual turnover of £500,000.
The diversification of the boards is mainly discussed in terms of electricity generation, but I am sure that the Minister is well aware that several boards have been hyperactive in putting together generating projects and, in some cases, joint ventures for power production.
I echo the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of talk about generating boards buying back into their supplying companies in the future? It has even been suggested that they might buy coal mines as well as other sources of fuel. What implications will that have in terms of the creation of new, future monopolies?

Mr. Michael Spicer: The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsey) has focused on amendment No. 134. I understand the purpose of his introductory remarks, and I listened with great care to what he said.
We believe that the present wording of the Bill is more embracing than amendment No. 134. The present wording enables the director to do what he wants to do—to check the financial credentials of a potential new entrant and to bear in mind that entrant's future viability when considering such matters as pricing formula and his other duties. The present wording meets the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman, especially in relation to clause 3(1)(b), and offers other advantages.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) was concerned about anti-competitive practices. So would we be, if there were the kind of anti-competitive practices that he has in mind. The normal anti-competitive rules and laws will apply. The Bill makes specific provision for the operation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and deals with the interrelationship between the powers of the director general to protect competition and the more general powers of the MMC.
While we would not want to restrict any reasonable diversification or development by any company, we agree that there should be consideration of anti-competitive practices. We think that the current institutions and laws for protecting the industry from the predatory behaviour that the hon. Gentleman has in mind are adequate.
On the basis of that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central will withdraw his amendment. Certainly we would not accept any of the amendments, and particularly those which, contrary to

what the hon. Member for Pontypridd was concerned about, are aimed at restricting competition and competitive pressures.

Mr. Illsley: In view of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and the points that I made in my contribution, we still feel that the Bill needs strengthening, particularly as regards financial mergers and takeovers. As the Minister is not willing to accept amendments on the point, we will divide the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 60, Noes 160.

Division No. 145]
[10.21 pm


AYES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hoyle, Doug


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Barron, Kevin
Illsley, Eric


Beith, A. J.
Kennedy, Charles


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Lambie, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Livsey, Richard


Blair, Tony
McAllion, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McAvoy, Thomas


Buckley, George J.
McFall, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Maxton, John


Cohen, Harry
Meale, Alan


Cox, Tom
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Crowther, Stan
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Cryer, Bob
Morgan, Rhodri


Dalyell, Tam
Pike, Peter L.


Dewar, Donald
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dixon, Don
Radice, Giles


Doran, Frank
Robertson, George


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Ruddock, Joan


Eadie, Alexander
Skinner, Dennis


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Soley, Clive


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Spearing, Nigel


Foster, Derek
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Foulkes, George
Wallace, James


Fyfe, Maria
Wareing, Robert N.


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Hardy, Peter
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Haynes, Frank
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)



Home Robertson, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hood, Jimmy
Mr. Nigel Griffiths and Mr. Allen McKay.


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Cash, William


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Chapman, Sydney


Amess, David
Chope, Christopher


Amos, Alan
Conway, Derek


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Ashby, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, David
Cran, James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Baldry, Tony
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Batiste, Spencer
Day, Stephen


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dorrell, Stephen


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boswell, Tim
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Peter
Durant, Tony


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dykes, Hugh


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fallon, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Favell, Tony


Bright, Graham
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fishburn, John Dudley


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Forman, Nigel


Browne, John (Winchester)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Buck, Sir Antony
Fox, Sir Marcus


Burns, Simon
Franks, Cecil


Burt, Alistair
Freeman, Roger


Butterfill, John
Gale, Roger


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gill, Christopher


Carrington, Matthew
Goodlad, Alastair


Carttiss, Michael
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles






Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gregory, Conal
Lord, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Grist, Ian
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Maclean, David


Hague, William
Malins, Humfrey


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mans, Keith


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Maples, John


Hanley, Jeremy
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Harris, David
Maude, Hon Francis


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Miller, Sir Hal


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Mills, Iain


Irvine, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Jack, Michael
Mitchell, Sir David


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Morrison, Sir Charles


Knapman, Roger
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Knight. Greg (Derby North)
Neale, Gerrard


Knowles, Michael
Needham, Richard


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Neubert, Michael


Lang, Ian
Nicholls, Patrick


Lawrence, Ivan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Norris, Steve


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Paice, James


Lilley, Peter
Patnick, Irvine





Patten, Chris (Bath)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Summerson, Hugo


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Redwood, John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thurnham, Peter


Rost, Peter
Tredinnick, David


Ryder, Richard
Trippier, David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Trotter, Neville


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shelton, Sir William
Warren, Kenneth


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Shersby, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Widdecombe, Ann


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Speller, Tony
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)



Squire, Robin
Tellers for the Noes:


Stevens, Lewis
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 79, in page 3, line 4, after 'charged', insert 'to tariff customers'.

No. 80, in page 3, line 5, leave out 'by them'.

No. 2, in page 3, line 24, after 'them', insert—
'(bb) to protect the public from dangers arising from the generation, transmission or supply of electricity;'. —[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Mr. Barron: I beg to move amendment No. 136, in page 3, line 27, at end insert —
'(d) to promote the efficient and economic use of heat co-generated with electricity in combined heat and power plants or stations.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 30, page 24, line 43, at end add —
'(4A) That electricity generated in a combined heat and power plant shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (4)(a) above as generated by a non-fossil fuel generating station for the proportion of the electricity produced that is equivalent to the measured quantity of heat distributed at a temperature greater than 60°C or more from the power station.'.

No. 149, in clause 30, page 25, line 17, at end add
'; and electricity generated in a combined heat and power plant shall be deemed to be generated by non-fossil fuel'.

Mr. Barron: Clause 3 relates to the general duties of the Secretary of State and the Director General of Electricity Supply after privatisation. That is a crucial matter which we debated with great interest in Committee and should like to discuss again on Report.
The amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State and the director the duty
to promote the efficient and economic use of heat co-generated with electricity in combined heat and power plants or stations.
It does not say exactly what type of plant that should be, and I do not want to go into that in great detail. However, I ought to give the reasons for the amendment.
Like many others, we believe that combined heat and power has not been treated properly. That form of co-generation has been in use in this country for a very long time, and we believe that there is a case for treating it effectively under the new regimes that are to take over from the Central Electricity Generating Board. Most people have no doubt that combined heat and power can make an important contribution. Indeed, larger schemes could make a dramatic contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gases—an issue which the Cabinet, and in particular the Prime Minister, has brought up. Over the last few months the Government have been saying that they are deeply concerned about the situation. The larger CHP schemes in this country could reduce emissions by at least 3 per cent.—and in some cases are doing so.
The Government tell us about the plans that are in the pipeline for smaller generators throughout the country after privatisation of the electricity supply industry. Experts predict that small-scale combined heat and power schemes, together with the larger ones, could cut greenhouse gas emission by up to 10 per cent. It is recognised that the wider use of waste heat for electricity generation would also result in savings for industry and for national and local government.
Let me mention briefly one or two of the current schemes which demonstrate the way in which many areas benefit, not just in the generation of electricity. The wider application of combined heat and power schemes in urban areas would stimulate urban regeneration, particularly in

inner cities. For a number of years—certainly since the last general election—this has been a major theme of the Prime Minister. She has said that she will take effective action in the inner cities. We do not see much effective action being taken by the Government on CHP, despite the fact that such action could make an important contribution to urban regeneration. If the Government were to accept amendment No. 136, they would be going some way towards finding ways of doing that.
Two papers were published recently by the Government. I understand that one of them shows that up to 4,000 sites in this country could benefit from combined heat and power. The other, which I think was produced by the Energy Efficiency Office, says that up to 1,500 major industries could be using combined heat and power. Perhaps the Minister will mention that in his intervention. So this is not a small matter; the system could be applied widely and quite flexibly.
Our amendments, particularly No. 136, would enable the opportunities to be grasped. They would put combined heat and power on at least an equal footing with the generating options that are being promoted in the Bill. I do not intend to return to yesterday's debate, but I remind the House that the Government are making sure that we will have nuclear generation for a considerable time. The same could be done for combined heat and power.
There is an amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) about giving some form of protection that was offered by the Secretary of State yesterday. The Secretary of State talked about a new tranche of capacity in non-fossil fuels being reserved exclusively for renewables. We shall see what the Secretary of State does about an amendment that could result in a combined heat and power tranche. If he undertook to consider that proposal, he would probably have the support of the whole House.
Successful combined heat and power schemes are being organised despite, rather than with, the assistance of the Government, mostly in areas controlled by Labour authorities. For example, Labour-controlled Waltham Forest council has won a major award from British Gas for its pioneering scheme which, among other things, is helping to keep the elderly of that Greater London area warm.
In Sheffield, the Labour-controlled city council has created the first European-based joint venture to develop a combined heat and power scheme, and in the first stage of that scheme local tenants are receiving heat from an incinerator burning domestic waste. It will be a privilege for me tomorrow to visit the area and observe that scheme.
The Labour city council of Leicester is actively supporting a joint venture with the private sector to introduce a major combined heat and power scheme. Newcastle, another Labour-controlled area, is continuing to work with the local business community and the electricity industry to create a combined scheme for the area.
In south London, the Labour councils of Greenwich, Southwark and Lewisham are working with a few private sector companies to initiate a combined heat and power scheme based on energy from waste. The hon. Member for Erewash and others will be aware of the amount of heat that is wasted in power stations. Let us harness that energy and send it out into the community to heat hospitals and domestic dwellings and thereby contribute to the nation's energy resources.
In a BBC television interview on 15 January, the Secretary of State said that he supported the idea of combined heat and power schemes, and he claimed that CHP would be encouraged by, and CHP technology would gain from, privatisation. There is no evidence of the Government turning those fine words into deeds.
On Second Reading, I referred to the way in which the Energy Act 1983 had failed to provide openings for new and diverse forms of energy generation. The CEGB and other generating companies have made it impossible for those interested in combined heat and power schemes to get into the market and sell electricity. Nothing has been said by the Government in these debates to encourage those who are trying to promote combined heat and power schemes that this legislation will prove more helpful to them than the 1983 Act. The Government should accept the amendment and show their willingness to move forward on combined heat and power in. the interests of the environment and the economy. There are many benefits to be had from combined heat and power.
Earlier in the debate the Grimethorpe fluidised bed project in south Yorkshire was mentioned. That is a way of enabling small generators to use coal cleanly and it avoids much of the air pollution that arises from the burning of fossil fuels, especially coal. I thought that the Minister would say that the Government would fill the gap that British Coal has encountered with that project. That project on fluidised bed combustion leads the world, and if we do not make sure that the final phase, the topping phase, is funded other countries will take the lead.
10.45 pm
Just before the Easter recess I was in Japan where fluidised bed combustion is being developed. We must not let our project fall at the end of the year. When it is commercialised in perhaps one or two years it could well fit into combined heat and power schemes. If we let the project lapse. I have no doubt that in 10 to 15 years the Government will buy Japanese technology on fluidised bed combustion, just as we are currently buying Japanese technology on flue gas desulphurisation, a technology which has been working in Japan for over a decade in coal-fired power stations. This year we have had to buy it for our big coal burners and have had to start a programme using Japanese technology.
The Opposition are in favour of developing British technology. The Minister spoke about the Grimethorpe fluidised bed project and said that he would probably be able to make a statement about it, but wanted more commitment from industry. That is like approaching a potential car buyer and saying to him, "I want you to invest in a new car. However, we have not quite finished the engine technology and we don't know exactly how it will work." No car salesman, not even the Arthur Daleys among Conservative Members, would try to sell such cars on the high streets of Britain.
We need to prove the technology that will fit in well with combined heat and power and Britain's technologists must be allowed to continue their development. The project needs about £11 million, but it has not been offered that in the debate. That money is required over three years and it is a mere pittance compared to the amount that the Bill is writing off in the nuclear industry. Not hundreds of millions but thousands of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money will be set against the excessive costs of the nuclear industry in the years ahead.
Month in and month out we have had to fight and argue with the Government in an attempt to get a commitment from them to follow private money into Grimethorpe to make sure that the technology is proved and that we are world leaders in the clean combustion of coal. Amendment No. 136 would commit the Secretary of State and the Director General of Electricity Supply to take seriously combined heat and power and all its benefits. I hope that the Government will say that they are at least prepared to look further at the matter. If they do not give that commitment, we may consider testing the amendment in a Division.

Mr. Peter Rost: I should like to speak to amendment No. 1. In 1973 I made my first speech in the House on energy efficiency and at that time hardly anybody had heard of combined heat and power. Over the past 15 years I have continued the campaign. As a result, I have an interest to declare because I have recently become a consultant to Associated Heat Services plc, the major company involved in the management of combined heat and power systems.
The arguments developed over many years in favour of energy efficiency were intended primarily to conserve a finite resource, to use it and to produce it less wastefully. The argument now has additional force for environmental reasons. If the Government are right in the assumption that they have expressed again this evening that world and United Kingdom electricity demand is going to grow, there is little hope for the planet. If the greenhouse effect is shown to be caused by global warming as a result of burning fossil fuels, there is little hope for the planet if we continue to produce our electricity in the present wasteful way.
At the moment, we throw away two thirds of the fuel that we put into a power station by cooling water. That creates two or three times as much carbon dioxide—greenhouse gases—than is necessary. We could convert the cooling water into useful energy.
I maintain that amendment No. 1 is modest. I suggest that electricity produced combined with hot water should be classed as a non-fossil fuel, but only that proportion of electricity which displaces fossil fuel which would otherwise have to be burnt if the hot water from the combined heat and power plant was not being distributed and used for space heating. As a combined heat and power plant produces a thermal efficiency of about 70 per cent. —or twice as much as an electricity-only plant—and as nearly half the fuel is converted into useful hot water, that must displace other fossil fuel which would otherwise have to be burnt to provide space heating. We are really burning twice as much fossil fuel in this country than is necessary and we are doing twice over—once in our power stations and throwing it all away and then again to provide space heating.
When electricity is produced in a CHP plant, fossil fuel is saved. The proportion of saved fossil fuel which is sold as useful heat for heating water should be entitled to be categorised within the non-fossil fuel band in the Bill.
I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister will give this amendment serious consideration because this is such a modest proposal. From our electricity production, we throw away about 60 million tonnes of coal-equivalent and we must bear in mind that that produces a considerable amount of CO2-type greenhouse gas. We


burn the same quantity of fossil fuel all over again to provide our space heating. Therefore, CHP can make an important contribution to reducing CO2.
Yesterday in this debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State conceded that there will be a special slot for renewable energy categorised as non-fossil fuel. Why did he do that? He justified it on the grounds that we need diversity and security of energy supply and also because we want to do something to alleviate the environment threat.
The arguments in favour of this amendment are the same as those espoused by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. By using hot water from electricity production instead of throwing it away, we create more diversity, more energy efficiency and we reduce the greenhouse effect.
In recent years there has been increasing pressure from the EC, which will undoubtedly lead to a firm directive that we use energy more efficiently, less wastefully, and environmentally more acceptably. Combined heat and power is one of the EC's strongest recommendations. It is important that it is made to Britain, because we are bottom of the European league. Millions of citizens elsewhere in Europe already benefit from cheap heating in their buildings, which comes from power stations combined with electricity production. We have a lot to do to catch up.
Government studies over recent years identified and confirmed the enormous potential for CHP in the United Kingdom. I strongly support the remarks of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), but I believe that if the Government cannot go as far as the Opposition amendment goes they should at least seriously consider my modest proposal.
Combined heat and power is the only technology that can reduce fossil fuel burn and at the same time provide new electrical generating capacity—which are both urgent priorities for the future. I challenge my hon. Friend the Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members to name any other energy technology that can do the same. Combined heat and power is the only technology also to offer the biggest potential for greater energy efficiency. The Combined Heat and Power Association, which supports my amendment and helped me to present it, has for many years argued that the benefits of CHP are far wider than those that I described. They include urban renewal, better housing, better health, and the reduction of fuel poverty.
The Select Committee on Energy is currently conducting an inquiry into the greenhouse effect. The evidence already received from many authoritative sources confirms that combined heat and power will reduce greenhouse gases to a greater extent, and more economically, than any alternative. There are several ways of reducing CO2, including the use of nuclear and renewable fuels and energy conservation. However, they all involve a higher economic penalty than CHP, which is the least-cost option for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.
If or when a consensus is reached by scientists internationally—which they have made a move towards reaching at Toronto—that, if we want to save life on earth, we are obliged to reduce fossil fuel burn, or at least greenhouse gases, then the Government will be able to congratulate themselves if, tonight, they supported my amendment. By doing so, they will be recognising that

there are very long lead times in making changes to our energy patterns and in developing from the present inefficient method of electricity production to the more efficient system of combined heat and power.
Rather than defer action now and be forced to take crash measures to meet international standards—which will prove far more costly—the Government should consider more seriously at this stage what will undoubtedly need to be done in future years. My hon. Friend the Minister will undoubtedly acknowledge that combined heat and power is already economic. He may ask why it should need an extra stimulus. Industrial coal generation is taking off in this country—it needs to, as we are bottom of that league also—because of electricity privatisation. For the first time, it is offering a level playing field.
11 pm
Large scale city combined heat and power has more self-financing problems. Its rates of return are much more marginal. Schemes in Sheffield, Leicester and Newcastle will have difficulty in making more than a marginal commercial rate of return because of the large up-front capital investment required to lay the infrastructure for hot water mains pipes. When we have them, we will have cheap heat for ever more, but the up-front capital investment is large. That is why there is an argument for this modest incentive.
The Government's case for supporting the nuclear industry and renewals is justified for reasons of diversity, security, the environment, and energy efficiency. But they will be costly. If combined heat and power can be given the modest incentive suggested by the amendment, we will achieve the same objectives, but without the same economic penalty. The marginal increase in the cost of electricity that would result from this amendment will help to provide the necessary capital for developing heat nodes in our cities.
The case for the special slot is overwhelming. For once, the Government could be seen to lead the European Community in providing an incentive, even if we are at the bottom of the league in the development of combined heat and power. By giving that incentive, the Government will also encourage the new technologies that the hon. Member for Rother Valley mentioned. The clean burn coal technologies for the fluidised bed which is adopted by combined heat and power will be helped by the amendment. The major encouragement which that would give to greater energy efficiency and the help that it would provide for a more effective and economic contribution to reducing the greenhouse gases for future generations is overwhelming. I hope that my hon. Friend will respond constructively by accepting the amendment, or at least by saying that he will give the matter further consideration.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) is right to remind the House of his long commitment to the concept of combined heat and power. My commitment to it may not be as long-standing as his, but I recall addressing the annual conference of the Combined Heat and Power Association almost a decade ago. The arguments that were advanced by the hon. Gentleman—he has been advancing them for a long time—were advanced then.
The cause of combined heat and power should by now be more firmly established. Had it not been for the


Government's dogmatic approach in the 1980s, we would have seen a greater achievement and greater potential for international advance and international trading opportunities than we do now. One wishes the project well, but it is a great pity that the Government had to put dogma before achievement in the early 1980s. I can evisage enormous advantages from combined heat and power associated with fluidised bed combustion.
I am pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is present, because it will allow me to trespass for one moment on the environmental effects which may follow the development of combined heat and power.
The Agriculture Minister will know that there are anxieties about the scale of fish farming around our coasts. It is appropriate for the use of combined heat and power to produce hot water, but not merely for warmth and comfort. Many people in our towns and cities desperately need warmth and comfort. We might be able to use some of that hot water to promote inland fish farming. That might save the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from the almost illegal action in which it is involved by allowing or encouraging the importation of manila clams, the farming of which is becoming a serious risk to our coasts and estuarial areas. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will save my having to raise that matter in the House on another occasion by examining that grave problem this evening. Combined heat and power has benefits that may go far wider than mere energy or direct environmental interests.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendment, and I hope that if the Government force us into the Lobbies in support of this just and wise cause, some Conservative Members will join the hon. Member for Erewash, who deserves the tribute of the House.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I shall speak briefly because I am a signatory to the amendment. I believe that the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) has come up with a simple, straightforward and rather ingenious amendment. It simply asks that the net benefit that combined heat and power can achieve should be credited to the non-fossil fuel quota. That seems to be an eminently reasonable proposition. It will probably be required anyway because it is doubtful whether the industry will otherwise be able to achieve a quota of the order that the Government seem to be describing.
The amendment would have definite environmental and efficiency benefits and could lead to the encouragement of combined heat and power which, as the hon. Member for Erewash has rightly pointed out, has considerable potential in the United Kingdom—much of it untapped. His own tireless fight for this cause over many years is appreciated by the House. He has done a service tonight by tabling a useful, constructive and ingenious amendment. I hope that if the Government cannot accept it, they will consider it. It will be of considerable benefit to all if they do so.

Mr. Michael Spicer: It is getting late, so the House will want me to be brief.
I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) and other hon. Members who have made the point that combined heat and power is an important potential source of energy. I also associate myself with what my hon. Friend said about the potential

beneficial environmental effects. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is right to congratulate my lion. Friend on all that he has done over the years to keep this technology in the forefront of people's minds.
I do not fully share my hon. Friend's anxieties about the future. Existing private generation now amounts to 3 GW of electricity and 2 GW of that is represented by combined heat and power plant, which is a substantial figure. I know that my hon. Friend has already made the point that that is industrial plant, and I shall deal with that in a moment. However, if we are looking to the immediate future, there is ample evidence that the very existence of the Bill is already bringing forward much new, independent generation. We know of about 7 GW of new capacity potentially in the pipeline. Of that, about 1·1 GW is of combined heat and power, such as the Leicester energy scheme and the British Sugar scheme at Brigg.
Industry is, therefore, proposing to increase its investment in combined heat and power by more than 50 per cent. and that is just a beginning. We do not think that there is a need, with respect to industry, to subsidise and artificially support combined heat and power. It is not part of this Government's plans to subsidise schemes which are clearly profitable to private industry and which make sound economic sense.

Mr. Rost: If the amendment were accepted, there would be no question of the industrial side being subsidised because industrial combined heat and power produces electricity and processed heat for industry's own purposes. It does not sell it.

Mr. Spicer: I appreciate that my hon. Friend is especially concerned about the domestic side of this technology. Government policy in general and the Bill in several specific ways about which I shall briefly remind t he House are addressing the more general problem to which my hon. Friend is referring. We have spent, for example, £750,000 on studies in Leicester, Belfast and Edinburgh, where there are city schemes. We are determined that the rating handicap under which this particular aspect of the industry has suffered should be altered so it is put on to an equal basis.
The Bill will not only give those wishing to engage in this form of technology free access to the system, but there will now be a duty on public electricity supply companies to buy from the most economic source. Therefore, if CHP is the most economic source, that duty will take effect. Perhaps most importantly in the context that my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash was discussing under clause 9(3) CHP operators will have statutory undertaker powers comparable to those enjoyed by the present utilities. For city schemes that is a major step forward.
In making this necessarily brief reply to my hon. Friend —given the time of night—and although I recognise entirely that this is an enormous subject, in which he is well versed, I must advise him that as a result of our privatisation proposals the prospects for private investment in CHP are looking very healthy. We are providing fair market conditions in which CHP schemes can compete freely with other forms of generation and heat supply. Their future will depend not on further public funding of subsidy but on their ability to operate competitively. Given its thermal efficiency, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and its versatility, CHP is well placed to do just that. In the light of that explanation, I hope that my hon.


Friend the Member for Erewash and other hon. Members will feel able to withdraw their amendments, well intended though they are.

Mr. Morgan: I am sorry to have to say that all that the Minister of State has done in his brief reply is to show how very much less he knows about CHP than does his hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost).
I shall go through what the Minister said about the glowing future that he envisages for CHP after privatisation. He said that 7 GW of new capacity is being promised or discussed with the Department and that 1·1 GW of that is CHP. That may well be true, but as far as we are aware—I shall be interested to know the views of the hon. Member for Erewash on this—the whole of that 1·1 GW falls into two categories. The first is industrial, which is sometimes known as micro-CHP, where the heat grid, led off from the power station, is on land that is within the control of the generator, Slough Estates or Tunnel Refineries. CHP programmes have also been started by Labour local authorities for the specific purpose of carrying out an experiment, which public authorities such as a local authority can do and have done in places such as Leicester, Sheffield and Newcastle. Other schemes have already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). However, we are not aware of any breakthrough of the kind that the hon. Member for Erewash and my hon. Friends have been calling for, such as some kind of boost in policy terms —not a subsidy—that would establish the principle of how CHP should work in the new set-up, outside the property of the generator.
The Minister is right—all hon. Members know that converting one's generators to the CHP mode can be economic in places such as leisure centres with a swimming pool where one wants summer heat, in hospitals or old people's homes where summer heat is needed because of the demands of the elderly and so on, and in premises where there have to be standby generators, such as large telephone exchanges or hospitals. That is micro-CHP and we have already conceded that that is taking off. We know that that will produce a large saving on fossil fuel and that it will contribute to reduced energy costs and to a reduction in the greenhouse gas pollution load.
But that is not the point. The point is that the Bill as presently structured is biased against CHP [Interruption.] It is not a question of a subsidy. Without the amendments that the hon. Member for Erewash and we have been proposing, the Bill will be biased against CHP for the simple reason that the duty laid on the Secretary of State and the director is to see that electricity —and only electricity—is generated in the most efficient and economic manner. In the CHP mode of generating electricity, one takes the steam off the turbines at a high temperature. That is not the optimum way of generating electricity because one would be virtually excluded under the Bill from operating an electricity power station in the CHP mode. One would not be generating electricity, taken on its own, in the most economic manner because one would be taking the hot water off before it had gone through the turbines to the maximum possible degree for keeping electricity prices down to the minimum.
11.15 pm
The point about our amendment, and that of the hon. Member for Erewash, is that it would permit the optimisation of two things at once—the taking off of the heat and the generation of the electricity. If anyone thinks that that is a minor point, he should look at the Government's own document on this subject, Energy Paper 20, in which it is illustrated. It is the Government's own calculation, which no one has contested, that if one supplies heat by generating electricity afresh to heat a room, and this is taken to be one unit of heat provided by electricity, one can do it at less than half that price if one does it by gas; but if one does it by CHP, by the offtake of the hot water, the cost goes down to one seventh of that of heating the room by freshly generated electricity.
That is the kind of point that we need to drill into the Minister tonight. The Bill is biased against CHP. An amendment of this sort is needed if we are to have CHP on a level playing field basis. If the Government want us to take them seriously, if they want us to believe that they are interested in fuel efficiency and in the greenhouse effect, and not just in making speeches at conferences or, as the Secretary of State will do next week, lecturing the Soviet Union on "British is best" in energy technology, they must think very seriously about the Bill and amend it so that it really gives a chance to "British is best" technology, which is there, waiting to be implemented if only there is a level playing field.
We know that we are behind in the application of CHP on other than a micro basis. We know that micro-CHP is taking off in the way that I have described. What we are not satisfied about is that large-scale CHP can take off unless the Government take a serious look at the legislation and at the amendments suggested.
On the grapevine we are told that, provided the Government persuade us and the hon. Member for Erewash not to press this to a vote, the Central Policy Unit, the 10 Downing street think tank, will recommend to the Department that it should support these amendments or something similar. I know that I should not be saying too much this week about 10 Downing street and leaks that have emanated from the staff there, but on the assumption that the information that we have had on the grapevine is even better than that of Sir Leon Brittan, now that he has emigrated temporarily to Europe, we will not press this to the vote. We shall expect to see some action from the Minister of State, taking, if not our advice, at least the advice from 10 Downing street, which is a far more important source

Mr. Rost: rose—

Mr. Morgan: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rost: I am sorry, I thought that the hon. Member had sat down.

Mr. Morgan: I am sorry. Was the hon. Member asking me to give way?

Mr. Rost: No.

Mr. Morgan: I am sorry. I do not really want to repeat my last line. I was just going to say that 10 Downing street will, I am sure, tell the Minister to do the right thing.

Mr. Rost: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman has addressed the House once. He cannot speak again.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now turn to amendment No. —

Mr. Rost: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I tabled an amendment and I have not yet withdrawn it. I ask you to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's amendment No. 1 was chosen for debate in a group of amendments selected by Mr. Speaker, the lead amendment of which was No. 136 which I have just put to the House and which the House has negatived.

Clause 4

PROHIBITION ON UNLICENSED SUPPLY ETC.

Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 14, leave out
'of high voltage lines and electrical plant'
and insert
'which consists (wholly or mainly) of high voltage lines and electrical plant and is'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:

No. 137, in page 4, line 15, after 'for', insert
'the pumped-storage of electricity or'.

Government amendment No. 4.

No. 127, in clause 8, page 7, line 10, after 'transmission', insert
'and generation by pumped storage.'.

Government amendments Nos. 8, 51, 52, 64 and 67.

Mr. Spicer: The Government consider that the amendments are technical or drafting, with the exception of amendments Nos. 51 and 52, which meet one of the matters discussed in Committee. I believe that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) raised in Committee the fact that the director general would be under a duty, if these amendments were brought forward, to publish information on performance standards at least once a year. We said that we would look at that matter and we have tabled the amendments in response to that debate.
We cannot accept Opposition amendments Nos. 137 and 127 because we do not see their point. The amendments aim to define pump storage as part of transmission. Transmission and generation, which pump storage is, are different things. Although, of course, pump storage is concerned with system stability, it is not the same as transmission. There is nothing to stop the transmission companies using pump storage in any way they wish, nor, indeed, to stop other pump storage stations coming forward, if they are economic, and are to be treated as generating companies. We may hear some concern to which I have not alluded, but we do not want to confuse, as do the Opposition amendments, transmission with generation. We would oppose amendments Nos. 127 and 137 if they were pressed, although I cannot see why they would be.

Mr. Morgan: I simply wish clearly to establish whether the National Grid Company will have a transmission licence. If not, how will it operate Dinorwig?

Mr. Spicer: Dinorwig will operate on the basis of generation licences. The National Grid Company will call up Dinorwig in precisely the same way as it calls up any other station. Therefore, there is no problem. It is part of its operations, but there is no problem about the licensing of future companies.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

EXEMPTIONS FROM SECTION 4

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 4, line 21, leave out 'so specified' and insert 'specified in the order'. —[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Clause 6

LICENCES AUTHORISING SUPPLY ETC.

Mr. Giles Radice: I beg to move amendment No. 138, in page 5, line 3, at beginning insert 'Subject to sub-section 11 below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to Lake the following amendments: No. 139, in page 6, line 8, at end add—
(11) no licence to supply electricity shall be extended by virtue of subsection 2(b) above, to cover an area without consultation with the consumers' committee for that area.'.

No. 165, in clause 7, page 6, line 17, at end insert—
'(c) conditions requiring any contract between a public
electricity supplier and a person authorised to generate electricity which is of more than ten years duration to be referred to the Director prior to the contract being agreed.'.

No. 175, in clause 9, page 7, line 36, at end insert—
'(2A) A licence under section 6(1) above shall provide that Schedule 3 to this Act shall not have effect in relation to a license holder if—
(a) the owner of the land affected by a compulsory purchase order or the person whose livelihood would be affected by such an order objects on the grounds that his livelihood would be affected;
(b) a member of the public objects on the grounds that the natural environment or wildlife would be damaged.
(2B) Where objections are lodged under (2A) above the licence holder may appeal to the Director General, who shall take into consideration the measures taken by the licence holder to expand capacity by means other than the building or expansion of plant.'.

No. 176, in page 8, line 18 at end insert—
'(6) Nothing in this section or in the schedules mentioned in this section relating to compulsory purchase shall affect the holding or outcome of a planning inquiry into an application to contruct or expand buildings or installations for the purpose of the generation, transmission or supply of electricity.'.

No. 179, in schedule 3, page 72, line 5 at end insert—
'(2A) Such consent may be given:
(a) in an emergency, or where the powers are to be used to comply with a notice given under Section 15 of this Act, only after reasonable notice has been given to the owner and occupier of any land;
(b) in all other circumstances, only after the consent of the owner and occupier of the land has been obtained, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
(3) Any question whether such consent is or is not unreasonably withheld shall be referred to and determined by the Secretary of State.'

No. 129, in clause 10, page 8, line 21 after second 'licence', insert
'and the consumers committee appropriate to that area.'.

No. 140, in clause 11, page 9, line 10 at end add—
(c) notwithstanding subsection (i) above the Director must refer to the Monopolies and Mergers commission any modification he proposes to the conditions of a licence, where the holder of one licence under Clause 6(1)(c) above is proposing to acquire another licence holder under that section.'.

No. 141, in page 9, line 10 at end insert—
(d) notwithstanding subsection (i) above the Director must refer to the Monopolies and Mergers commission any modification he proposes to the conditions of a licence, where the holder of a licence is proposed to be acquired by another person.'.

No. 143, in page 9, line 23 at end add—
'any observations of the consumers' committee for that area on the reference with regard to subsections (1) and (2) above.'.

No. 142, in page 10, line 3 at end add—
'(c) any observations of the consumers' committee for that area on the reference with regard to subsections (1) (2) and (3) above.'.

Mr. Radice: The amendments concern the licensing arrangements and contracts which I believe go to the heart of the Bill. The Secretary of State has said that electricity privatisation, unlike other privatisations, creates and enhances competition and produces what is called downward pressure on prices. The problem, of course, for the Secretary of State is that he must create the conditions in which he can successfully sell the industry to private investors and ensure certainty of supply. In the end what the Government have come up with is what is being called the big fix arrangement—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State appears surprised at the phrase "big fix". I should have thought that he had become very familiar with it, as he invented it.
The big fix regime is a licensing system in which—I quote not from a Labour party document but from a very good publication—
the interests of the privatised companies are balanced out and protected as far as possible; where new entrants will, initially at least, find it difficult to enter the market, and where prices are very strongly regulated.
In Committee we had one of the fiercest, the most heated and, I believe, the most revealing debates over licensing and the issue of contracts. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) made one of his most able speeches and demonstrated that the licensing and contract proposals were extremely complicated. One hon. Member had to ask for a blackboard to try to assist other hon. Members to understand the proposals. The Minister also had trouble understanding them.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend says that the Minister also had some trouble. Is he aware that the Minister is not listening to his argument, but is busy consulting the advisers in a great conference in the corner of the Chamber? Presumably he is trying to get some information to answer the debate, but surely it would be better if he listened to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Radice: The Minister had such problems throughout the Committee, that he was almost always consulting non-existent advisers while Opposition Members were speaking—that is par for the course.
The licensing arrangements and contracts were specifically designed in the case of electricity supply to rule out competition at the initial stage and to introduce, at best, a limited form of competition only in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield also forced the Government to reveal the existence of the "contract working party", which has been established to arrange the big fix. In the so-called initial contracts for existing capacity, which could last for up to 10 years, the big fix ensures that there is no significant competition because the yardsticks do not apply.
In Committee the Government admitted that, in respect of contracts for future capacity, those contracts will be allowed to have take-or-pay clauses. It is unlikely that companies will enter the industry unless such clauses exist. If it is correct that the yardsticks will not apply in the contracts for existing capacity and that contracts for future capacity will contain take-or-pay clauses, it is extremely hard for the Government then to argue that those contracts will promote meaningful competition in the day-to-day operations of the industry.
Our amendment is designed to make the best of a bad job. It would ensure that all long-term contracts come under the specific supervision of the director general. Under our amendment he would be able to call in all long-term contracts prior to their agreement.
The amendment is sensible and constructive and a Government who were serious about competition would accept it. I suspect that, despite all the claims by the Secretary of State and the Minister about competition, the Government are more interested in ensuring the successful sale of a public industry. If they reject the amendment it will confirm our case, made so ably by my hon. Friends in Committee, that the Government believe not in competition or in helping the consumer, but only in privatisation, irrespective of the merits of the case.

Mr. Beith: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 175 and 176, although, at this time of night, it would be more honest to say that it has fallen to me to speak to amendments Nos. 175 and 176.
Amendment No. 175 relates to the compulsory purchase powers in the Bill. They have caused a great deal of anxiety to many people, some of whom have, in the past, voted for the Conservative party. They are a little puzzled about why the party which they have long supported has granted such draconian—they would consider them Socialist—compulsory purchase powers to private companies. The amendment would change the procedure so that, in certain circumstances, it would be the director general's duty, if appealed to, to decide the matter and to take into consideration the alternatives that were available to the company concerned to expand capacity in some other way instead of building the proposed plant or expanding an existing one.
11.30 pm
Two sets of circumstances are envisaged. The first involves the owner of land affected by compulsory purchase whose livelihood would be affected. I quote the National Farmers Union:
The NFU is opposed in principle to the granting of compulsory purchase powers to private companies. We believe that where PLCs need to acquire rights in land, or land itself, they should pay the open-market rate for those interests. That should include any development value …At the very least, the PLCs should have to seek the consent of the owners and occupiers of the land which they wish to acquire.
The NFU is concerned about occupiers whose livelihood will be at stake if land is taken away. It may be the crucial acreage without which a farm ceases to be viable. If that acreage is to be taken away because an


electricity supply company insists on building a power station when other alternatives are open to it, it is surely right that those alternatives should be examined. A power station project should not be presented at a compulsory purchase inquiry as inevitable and necessary, and as something which by its nature justifies the exercise of compulsory purchase powers. The director general will have the means, the experience and the qualifications to assess whether it might be open to the company to expand its capacity in another way.
The same procedure is envisaged in the amendment where there are public objections on the ground that the natural environment or wildlife would be damaged. Again, one can imagine a compulsory purchase inquiry where the objectors come along to point out that some unique wildlife habitat or noteworthy and well-appreciated environmental feature will be destroyed, but the supply company says, "We have to have this power station. It must he built. We have no alternative." In those circumstances, it is surely reasonable that instead of the inspector dealing with the matter at a compulsory purchase inquiry the director general, who will be qualified in those matters, should be able to consider whether the company could not carry out the expansion it required by some means other than the building of the plant in that particular place.
Amendment No. 176 also seeks to secure the rights available to objectors at planning inquiries in cases where compulsory purchase is involved.
The burden of both amendments is to protect the environment, wildlife and those whose livelihood may be affected by the exercise of draconian compulsory purchase powers by private companies which may not have sufficient regard to the alternatives open to them.

Mr. Michael Spicer: It falls to me to have to answer the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and, of course, the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). I shall deal first with the rather technical amendments referred to by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. We do not believe that those amendments are necessary, although we understand the hon. Gentleman's concern.
On amendment No. 176, where a proposed project requires the Secretary of State's consent under clauses 33 and 34, and is subject to public inquiry, the practice is for any related applications for compulsory purchase orders —the hon. Gentleman's worry—to be considered together with the planning application. In fact, the inspector will generally be asked to advise the Secretary of State on both matters. So there is no question of an application for a compulsory purchase order being allowed to affect the holding or the outcome of the inquiry.
We also think that amendment No. 175 is unnecessary because the compulsory purchase provisions of schedule 3 would apply only where the licensee wished to purchase land for licence-related activities, that is, activities directly related to the generation, transmission or supply of electricity. Under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 a public inquiry has to be held if the owner-occupier of the land objects. The hon. Gentleman has fairly raised these matters, but they are covered under present legislation.

Mr. Beith: Is the Minister satisfied that, at such an inquiry, it would be open to the objector to argue that other options are available to the company, rather than building that particular plant in that place?

Mr. Spicer: The objector has rights to make whatever cases he wishes, and at the inquiry it will be up to the inspector to determine the terms of reference and the conditions. The objector's rights will be accommodated within the normal terms of an inquiry. Therefore, there is no problem for the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to be concerned about.
I imagine that the hon. Member for Durham, North was speaking to amendment No. 165, which we do not want to accept because contractual procedures are fundamental to the new structure that we are introducing in the Bill. Contracts should be freely entered into with the least possible interference. The regulator will have powers over the price formula, but we do not wish to interfere with contractual arrangements after they have been set up.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 7

Amendments made: No. 5, in page 6, line 21 leave out from 'by' to 'and' in line 23 and insert 'other persons for such purposes as may be specified in the conditions'.

No. 6, in page 6, leave out lines 26 to 28.

No 7, in page 6, line 38, leave out
'by the Director such questions arising'
and insert
'or approval by the Director such questions arising or things falling to be done'.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Schedule 3

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND ETC. BY LICENCE HOLDERS

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move amendment No. 98, in page 72, line 15, leave out 'five years from' and insert
'the period of five years beginning with'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 92, 81 to 84, 93, 9 to 11, 94 to 96, 85, 86, 89, 29 and 30.

Mr. Lang: The amendments in this group are all minor, technical or intended to clarify—with the single exception of amendment No. 92, about which I shall say a few words.
Schedule 3 sets out the procedure by which one licensee may compulsorily purchase land belonging to another licensee. The procedure would, in particular, be available when an independent generator wishes to purchase redundant land, for example a disused power station site, belonging to National Power or PowerGen. The procedure would involve both the Director General of Electricity Supply and the Secretary of State. The director is required to refuse his consent to a CPO application if it appears to him that
(a) the land would be used for the purposes of an installation necessary for the carrying out of the activities which the existing owner is authorised by his licence to carry on; (b) the use will commence, or any necessary planning permission or consent will be applied for, within five years.
The compulsory purchase order then has to be confirmed by the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 92 enables the Secretary of State, by order, to vary the five-year period that the director general


has to take into account. It introduces an element of flexibility and calms the anxieties expressed in Committee and I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister give us further assurances on this point. He referred to the problems that could arise when a would-be private independent generator wants to take over "redundant land"—that was his expression. Redundant plant, or land that is no longer required, is one thing, and we understand that it would be particularly attractive for a private generator to acquire access to such land. That sounds an innocent and fair procedure—on the surface. However, something else is lurking beneath the surface. In the redundant power station, or major switching station, site is the belly of the transmission system.
The new would-be private generator will receive two advantages if the director general chooses to favour him with the benefit of the Secretary of State's advice. He not only gets a site—that is the innocent part of it—he gets a site which has been planned for the integrated system, from which we in Britain benefit, which has all the grid lines running straight out of it.
Therefore, the private generator has the advantage of a site with a windfall of gains which removes the need to invest in a transmission network. To do that without specifying in the Bill that compensation will be paid to those who have invested in the power lines from that location, whether it is a major switching station or a power station, would be an abortion; an improper procedure contrary to the rights of the people who have invested a large amount of money. We need some assurance from the Minister on that.

Mr. Lang: I understand the anxieties of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). They are probably exaggerated and I shall seek to reassure him.
First, we are talking often about land which has not been developed in any way at all but which has been acquired with a view to possible development for a power station. In other cases we may be talking about redundant power station sites, possibly in an urban area, which might have value, not necessarily for electricity.

Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is getting to the nub of the argument. It is precisely those sites that are the most attractive to the new technology. We could quote examples from almost every large city in Britain. The technology in electricity generation has caused the siting requirements to come full circle. Power stations 30 or 40 years ago were 50 MW, 100 MW or 150 MW on average, all in large cities. Then with the explosion of turbine generator size they went straight up to 500 MW, 600 MW, and finally 660 MW, as one sees in giant stations such as Drax. They all had to be moved 30 or 40 miles from the cities to sources of cooling water such as the large rivers of the Trent, the Ouse or the Ayr.
Now, according to John Baker, the chief executive designate of National Power and PowerGen, the technology has come back to the 200 MW or even 150 MW power stations, which can produce electricity just as cheaply. Therefore, those redundant downtown power station sites are needed once again. Those are the attractive sites because the technology means that the plants can be small. This is where the fight will come.
The old power stations of the municipal era in the 1920s and 1930s were located precisely where everybody who is after the jam which will be made available on privatisation will want to go. This is an extremely hot potato in the technological, profitable and competitive future of the industry. Any suggestion that that can be slipped through as a technicality is a complete misconstruction of where the investment will take place.

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) was intervening in the Minister's speech. We cannot have an intervention on an intervention.

Mr. Lang: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).

Mr. Cryer: If my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) is making a valid point, as I think he is, is it not also true that the very sites that he is talking about are ideal for combined heat and power schemes operating in inner-city areas? Would it not be important to keep such sites as an alternative?

Mr. Lang: That may be so, but the point of the amendment is simply to vary the five-year period by replacing the words "five years from" with the words
the period of five years beginning with".
In devising the procedures in schedule 3 the Government have sought to establish a balance between, on the one hand, the good competition reasons for enabling independent generators to gain access to redundant power station sites and, on the other, the rights of the incumbent owner.
The Government believe that the schedule gets the balance right, but that the amendment would provide a reserve power that would enable the Government to reduce the five-year period in paragraph 2(2)(b) of schedule 3, if that should appear desirable on competition grounds, in order to facilitate access for independent generators to surplus land held by other licensees. It is a desirable element of flexibility and the balance is right.

Mr. Morgan: The question is whether the balance is right. Even the CEGB, before the cap-badging and the theoretical split took place on 1 January, was anxious about the future of gas turbine stations which it wanted to locate on many of its old redundant power station sites such as Colchester avenue in Cardiff. It thought that these were the right places for its booster stations, even with the old-fashioned technology, and with none of the impact of the splitting of the two power stations, or the additional encouragement for private generation. The board still wanted those sites to be reserved for gas turbines. What compensation will there be for the loss of that ability to put gas turbine stations in to act as local boosters at times of peak demand?
11.45 pm
Then there is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) made about CHP. Obviously, one cannot have CHP, on sites like Ratcliffe-on-Soar or Drax, a long way from stations. The middle of Slough or Cardiff or Bradford, where power stations that were built in the 1930s were knocked down in the 1960s, is where one finds the really attractive locations for water grids to go with electricity grids. Almost


invariably the switching stations are still there, conferring enormous benefit on the land. In addition, there are the housing and industrial estates that are to be supplied from the hot water grid. Whoever controls this land controls the industry.
We have heard the Minister of State boast about the 7 GW from potential private investors. He seemed to be waving some sort of macho symbol before the House, to indicate the great success of private generation, forgetting that half the time it was Labour-controlled city councils that were putting together the consortia which were going to have the more constructive and innovative schemes in areas like Leicester, Sheffield and Newcastle.
But they all need these sites. The whole point about this legislation is that we must be sure that the Minister, in his search to come good on the 7 GW of private power about which he has been talking—some of it might be described as Socialist private power, emanating from the innovative ambitions of Labour-controlled city councils, which, half the time, half of the rest of Ministers are trying to close down—realises that these sites are absolutely critical. Without the right site one does not have the potential for a profitable scheme.
I am concerned that private generators may, by back-door methods, gain preferential access to the Minister, who has been putting himself on the line by saying, "I am going to get private power in." When I say "private generators" I mean really private generators with just banks behind them, and not generators controlled by Labour local authorities—or even Conservative local authorities or hung councils—or British Coal, or other public-sector bodies. Private generators will want those sites, and they will get preferential access, because otherwise they will not go ahead, and if they do not go ahead the Secretary of State will not have much of a speech for the next Tory party conference.

Mr. Cryer: I can tell from the look on your face, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are looking forward to my comments. No doubt you will be disappointed to learn they will be fairly brief.

Mr. Haynes: And in order.

Mr Cryer: And, of course, in order.
I, too, am concerned about the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has made. In the early 1980s I was closely involved in questioning the CEGB about the closure of a number of power stations on these sites. I recall, for instance, the one near the centre of Huddersfield and, many years earlier, the one at Canal road, Bradford—a plum site which has been sold for retail development.
These are plum sites in every sense because they are near city centres. If the private sector, so beloved of the present collection of incompetents in the Government, acquires them for private generation, they will confer an enormous advantage, particularly if the private generators decide to opt out of generation and sell the sites for retail or industrial development.
I have always felt that city-centre sites should have been retained by the CEGB for electricity generation. I gave the reasons in that unfortunate—unfortunate, as it turned out —intervention in an intervention about combined heat and power. If the waste heat from electricity generation is to be used for heating domestic or industrial units, the

generating will have to be done near those units. The sites about which we are talking are situated largely in inner-city areas.
I thought that the CEGB pursued a mistaken policy in concentrating on large power stations, with consequent extended transmission lines, and closing down relatively recently constructed—in some cases in the 1960s—power stations near city centre sites. My view was that the CEGB was creating a power gap to justify the construction of nuclear power stations—because that was surplus generating capacity and was not a basic component—when the small stations were adequate in total to meet the generation demand.
I hope that the Minister will give more concrete assurances that this is not an opportunity for the private enterprise cronies of Conservative Members to come into the industry and have direct access to city-centre sites, which are the most valuable, whether for generation or For making a fast buck, enabling them to get their hands on real estate which at present is publicly owned.

Mr. Lang: I can give the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) the assurance he seeks. He is reading more into the amendment than it provides. We debated this matter in Committee. I am proposing a minor modification to the provision that already exists in the schedule to enable the five-year period to be varied and thereby introduce a desirable degree of flexibility. We are talking about a situation in which the Secretary of State and the director general are involved and have a role to play. We are talking in the context of a compulsory purchase order. This is a desirable modification of the provision as drafted.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) raised the question of compensation. There are already compensation procedures in schedule 3. The standard situation when a compulsory purchase takes place is that compensation must be paid on the basis of market value without taking account of development value. That would apply here also.
I emphasise that under a Bill as drafted National Power or PowerGen will be able to forestall an attempt by another licensee to raise a compulsory purchase order against their redundant land by showing that they intended to use that land or expecting to apply for planning permission within five years. In our view, while that is a fair measure of protection for those companies, it is right that the Government should have the reserve power to vary the five-year period. That is what the amendment does, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Morgan: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to speak only once at this stage of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 92, in page 72, line 16, at end insert—
'(2A) The Secretary of State may by order provide that sub-paragraph (2) above shall have effect as if for the period mentioned in paragraph (b) there were substituted such other period as may be specified in the order.'.

No. 8, in line 46, after first 'of', insert
', and paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to,'.

No. 81, in page 74, line 37, after '1 5.', insert
'—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below,'.

No. 82, in line 41, at end insert—


'(2) Paragraph 10 of the first Schedule to that Act (statutory undertakers' land excluded from compulsory purchase) shall not apply where the land or rights in question belong to another licence holder.'. —[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Schedule 4

OTHER POWERS ETC. OF LICENCE HOLDERS

Amendments made: No. 83, in page 78, line 46, after in,', insert 'on,'.

No. 84, in page 79, line 11, leave out 'in' and insert 'on or over'.

No. 93, in page 82, line 48, at end insert—

'Provisions supplementary to paragraph 5
5A.—(1) Where a wayleave is granted to a licence holder under paragraph 5 above—

(a) the occupier of the land; and
(b) where the occupier is not also the owner of the land, the owner,
may recover from the licence holder compensation in respect of the grant.
(2) Where in the exercise of any right conferred by such a wayleave any damage is caused to land or to moveables, any person interested in the land or moveables may recover from the licence holder compensation in respect of that damage; and where in consequence of the exercise of such a right a person is disturbed in his enjoyment of any land or moveables he may recover from the licence holder compensation in respect of that disturbance.
(3) Compensation under this paragraph may be recovered as a lump sum or by periodical payments or partly in one way and partly in the other.
(4) Any question of disputed compensation under this paragraph shall be determined by the Tribunal; and sections 2 and 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 or sections 9 and 1 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 shall apply to any such determination.'.

No. 9, in page 83, line 39, at end insert
'or such longer period as the Secretary of State may specify'.

No. 10, in page 83, line 47, at end insert
'or such longer period as the Secretary of State may specify'.

No. 11, in page 84, line 30, after 'heard', insert
'by a person appointed by him'.

No. 94, in page 85, leave out lines 44 to 48.

No. 95,page 86,line 2, at end insert—
moveables" means chattels in relation to England and Wales and corporeal moveables in relation to Scotland;'.

No. 96, in page 86, line 21, at end insert—
'"the Tribunal" means the Lands Tribunal in relation to England and Wales and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland in relation to Scotland.'. —[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Schedule 5

WATER RIGHTS FOR HYDRO-ELECTRIC GENERATING STATIONS IN SCOTLAND

Amendments made: No. 85, in page 87, line 3, after first 'of, insert 'riparian owners and other'.

No. 86, in page 87, line 43, after 'taken', insert
',or into which water is to be discharged'.

No. 89, in page 87, line 45, leave out from 'from' to 'and' and insert
'or into which water is to be so taken or discharged'.—Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Clause 15

DUTY TO SUPPLY ON REQUEST

Amendments made: No 12, in page 13, line 30, after third 'the', insert 'other person's'.

No. 13, in line 41, leave out from 'below' to end of line 43 and insert—
'(e) specify any other terms which that person will be required to accept under section (Additional terms of supply) below; and
(f) state the effect of section 21 below.'.

No. 14, in line 44, after 'to' insert
'19, (Additional terms of supply), 20 and'.;[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Clause 16

EXCEPTIONS FROM DUTY TO SUPPLY

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 14, line 13, at end insert
'and in this Part "private electricity supplier" means a person, other than a public electricity supplier, who is authorised by a licence or exemption to supply electricity'. —[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Clause 19

POWER TO REQUIRE SECURITY

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 16, line 16, at end insert
'and any notice under paragraph (a) above shall state the effect of section 21 below.' —[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There has been a welshing on an agreement about today's business, and I am totally disgusted with Conservative Members. [Interruption.] We had agreed to go to amendment No. 111 and we are not there yet. I know what the problem is. The Government cannot keep their troops here. We made agreements in Committee upstairs and we stuck to them. There has been no guillotine on the Bill, and now Government Members are welshing on an agreement at this stage of the measure. We should continue our debates up to amendment No. 111, yet now a Government Whip has moved, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned. It is shocking.

Mr. Wallace: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is fair to say that, as far as I am aware, the agreement has been honoured.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is exactly how we see it. It is outrageous for the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) to raise a point of order on this matter. We have abided by the agreement. The hon. Gentleman may be under some misapprehension. The Democrats also saw the agreement in that way and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) made that clear. We were willing to go further to meet the hon. Member for Ashfield but the Democrats were not prepared to do so. That is why we decided to honour the agreement that we had with the Democrats.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not aware of or party to any agreement.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 25.

Division No. 146]
[11.53 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Amos, Alan


Amess, David
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)






Ashby, David
Knowles, Michael


Atkinson, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Baldry, Tony
Lang, Ian


Beith, A. J.
Lawrence, Ivan


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lilley, Peter


Boswell, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bottomley, Peter
Lord, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Bright, Graham
Mans, Keith


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Maude, Hon Francis


Burns, Simon
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Burt, Alistair
Miller, Sir Hal


Butterfill, John
Mills, Iain


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Mitchell, Sir David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Nicholls, Patrick


Carrington, Matthew
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Cash, William
Norris, Steve


Chapman, Sydney
Paice, James


Chope, Christopher
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Conway, Derek
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Cran, James
Redwood, John


Davies, Q. (Stamfd &amp; Spald'g)
Ryder, Richard


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Day, Stephen
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Dorrell, Stephen
Shaw, David (Dover)


Dover, Den
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Durant, Tony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Forman, Nigel
Speller, Tony


Freeman, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Gale, Roger
Stevens, Lewis


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Gill, Christopher
Summerson, Hugo


Goodlad, Alastair
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gregory, Conal
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hague, William
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Trotter, Neville


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hanley, Jeremy
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Wallace, James


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Waller, Gary


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Watts, John


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Widdecombe, Ann


Irvine, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Kennedy, Charles



King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kirkhope, Timothy
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Michael Fallon.


Knapman, Roger



Knight, Greg (Derby North)





NOES


Barron, Kevin
McFall, John


Blair, Tony
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Meale, Alan


Dixon, Don
Morgan, Rhodri


Doran, Frank
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Ruddock, Joan


Foster, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Spearing, Nigel


Hardy, Peter
Wareing, Robert N.


Haynes, Frank
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Home Robertson, John



Hood, Jimmy
Tellers for the Noes:


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Bob Cryer.


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)



Illsley, Eric

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered on Monday 10 April.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to
Standing Order No. 102 (Standing Committees on European Community documents).

SINGLE MEMBER PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANIES

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6705/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 10th March 1989 on single member private limited companies; and endorses the Government's view that if the collective decision of the European Community is that this proposal is to go forward, it should provide for only the minimum of regulation consistent with enabling such companies to be established and safeguarding the interests of those dealing with them.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Question agreed to.

CONTROL OF POLLUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL [Money]

Queens recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.— [Mr. Alan Howarth.]

LAW OF PROPERTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Monday 10 April.

Orders of the Day — PETITIONS

Football Membership Scheme

Mr. John Garrett: I beg leave to present a petition, the preamble of which states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of supporters of Norwich City football club showeth that the undersigned signatories express their condemnation of proposed legislation to force football supporters to carry identification cards.
We believe that a system of identity cards will have little impact on the problem of football related violence, will hinder football's attempts to attract a new generation of supporters and will lead to the eventual demise of the game as a spectator sport.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge that the Government bring forward proposals which have the support of genuine football supporters. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
Attached to that preamble are 10,916 signatures.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Planning Decisions (Claygate)

Mr. Ian Taylor: I beg to ask leave to present a petition on behalf of 750 of my constituents. The signatures were collected over a few days after Easter, mainly from residents of the village of Claygate who are


concerned about the damage that planning decisions are causing to the character of their area. The problem concerns many of my constituents. The petition states
That the Council of the Borough of Elmbridge is at present unable to carry out the earnestly held wishes of the said residents that their environment be preserved from the demolition of certain residential properties of historic importance to them, and from the consequent loss of established trees and open spaces surrounding and between such properties, even when the Council is in agreement with the wishes of your petitioners. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will enable them to continue in peace to enjoy the remaining buildings and open spaces, each in his own hamlet, village or town, by-supporting the Private Member's Bill of the Hon. Member for Harrow, East … "Planning Permission(Demolition of Houses) Bill". This Bill would solve these problems.
|I trust that the House will take due note of the views of the petitioners in this important matter.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Tonsillectomies (North Devon)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Mr. Tony Speller: In raising the subject of delays in tonsillectomy operations in north Devon I am talking of a drama which has no villains in the cast, although some members of it may regard their opponents as villainous.
Although there are no villains, there are victims, and they are children. They are children who need tonsillectomies, and they are children of my north Devon constituents who look for help to the North Devon health authority and, in particular, to our ear, nose and throat specialist, Mr. John Riddington Young. The problem, expressed simply, is that, although Mr. Riddington Young works within the National Health Service and within the North Devon health authority, for several years there has been a stalemate over the use of facilities in our excellent North Devon general hospital, where no tonsillectomies are being performed.
The stage is the hospital and the cast are the highly qualified, well-respected members of the health authority, the consultants, and all the medical and administrative staff within the authority. In essence, the problem is simply that, because of his fears for the safety of youngsters in their post-operative period, the ENT specialist refuses to use the post-operative facilities which the health authority wishes him to use.
Should the young patient be placed in the paediatric ward or in a surgical ward? On one side of the argument is the health authority, which considers that a paediatric ward is the right place for a youngster to recover. On the other side is the argument of the ear, nose and throat specialist, who will only accept placement of his patients in a surgical ward. He wants a physically separate ward or area in which patients may recover, free from fear of cross-contamination. Those are sensible and logical, but argumentative positions. I truthfully have no idea who is in the right.
Now an element of farce appears. The consultant will not operate under the conditions laid down by the health authority. Recently, the Government have provided £75,000 towards cutting the queues of people on waiting lists. I was grateful for that until I found out that, because the consultant will not operate until the health authority accepts his conditions for the children, the health authority, disagreeing with its consultant, is sending 40 children for tonsillectomies at Nuffield hospital in Plymouth. So out of our £75,000 of extra funds, £49,000 will be spent on sending our youngsters 50 or 60 miles to Plymouth for their operations. It seems ludicrous. We have the surgeon and we have the beds, but because the beds are in the wrong ward—or seem to be—we send our youngsters across the county and pay for the privilege of not using our own facilities. We have an outstanding surgeon and a super hospital and they are part of a good local health authority, but no operations are carried out. That waste of abilities and facilities must cause my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to reach with a shudder for his White Paper.
The problem goes back to 1984. I was first involved when one parent, who was a qualified nurse, complained about the lack of access to her child in the post-operative


period after a tonsillectomy and was in great dispute with Mr. Riddington Young. Time passed, and during 1987 there were rumblings of discontent over the growing list of young people needing tonsillectomies, but having either to go to Exeter—where, I believe, the post-operative system used is that preferred by Mr. Riddington Young—or to go private.
Constituents sought my help and I, in turn, contacted the community health council and the North Devon health authority. As nothing seemed able to break the stalemate, I sought help from the previous Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), but the stalemate continued. We are now into our fourth year of no tonsillectomies, although beds and a consultant are available. We reached the stage that the stalemate always seemed to be on the point of compromise, but whenever the usual channels were used they silted up so it was necessary to find a way over or round them. The purpose of this debate is to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to use the national part of our National Health Service to effect or even impose a solution.
I want to make two further points. Mr. John Riddington Young has the reputation of being an outstanding ear, nose and throat specialist. His patients appreciate his work and many constituents have written to me in his support. He is from Yorkshire and has many of the talents of that great county and it may be that he also has some of the stubbornness for which it is also renowned. Compromise seems alien to him, as he believes that any compromise may damage his patients. Who can complain about a medical officer who cares more for his patients than for the bureaucracy? I have no specific complaint about the consultant.
Secondly, my North Devon health authority is excellent. In 10 years in the House, I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of complaints about the authority. I listen to colleagues in Question Time and debates complaining about their local health authorities, but I do not have that problem. My constituents like the health authority and they like its consultants. None the less, there are no operations and that is ludicrous. I have used the word "silly" in the past and been criticised for it, but it must be silly that the taxpayers' money is not being used to help the children who need help.
The North Devon health authority claims to be following Government guidelines in making the best use of the beds. Perhaps following the problems of Cleveland, it is unwilling to put young children in an adult ward overnight. The crux of the problem is that the consultant specialist says, "I will operate only if children are placed in a surgical adult ward overnight." However, he would prefer a separated ward and I understand his argument on that. The health authority says, "We have good paediatric staff, with excellent nurses with excellent qualifications, and the paediatric ward is where children should go." Both arguments carry complete conviction to the layman but taken together the two arguments mean that none of the children in my constituency are getting their tonsillectomies, which must be nonsense under any circumstances.
Therefore, I can see both points of view in the play. I do not use the word "play" humorously because this is a play. Although we are talking about operating theatres, the issue is theatre with a play that has a cast of excellent characters who are highly qualified people. They are people of whom I have no personal criticism because they

are specialists in their own procedures. However, they are none the less at loggerheads and we have reached the stage where only my hon. Friend the Minister can assist us in making a breakthrough.
My fear is that if we do not resolve the problem soon my area, covered by the North Devon health authority, will lose its ENT operating capacity. Unusually, it is a single consultant facility. Children need to be near their parents, especially when they are in hospital and although Exeter is an excellent hospital it is 50 miles away and for a low-income constituency such as mine that is 50 expensive miles. That is my problem; the children should be near their parents; the parents live in the Barnstaple and the Ilfracombe area, which makes that the logical place for operations.
I turn finally to the White Paper of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. It is not to the taste of many medical people and nor are some of my hon. Friends deeply enamoured by it. I believe in local health care and respect Mr. Riddington Young, the consultant, but equally I know well and have full confidence in councillor Mrs. Ro Day the chairman of the authority.
It may be that our regional health authority in far-away Bristol—we in the west country think of Bristol as south midlands, not south west—should have done something earlier. Perhaps the local consultants, individually or collectively, should have brought pressure to bear. But whatever the reason, only the children are suffering. No one else has lost a thing—not a penny, not a pound. No one has lost a night's sleep except for the parents—and the children have suffered. The community is sick and tired of what seems to us to be a dispute that should have been resolved long ago.
Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to bring; down the curtain on this too long running farce. The cast is excellent but it must get its act together because beyond the size and the scope of what is a petty dispute to the outside world is the whole question of our National Health Service. Some of my constituents were sent to Exeter last year for treatment for cancer and it is well known nationally that a number were badly damaged by an overdose. For what it is worth, constituents come to me and say, "We were promised help but we have not got it. There is some form of delay. There is a problem over legal aid."
While I am a supporter of the NHS—my family and myself are users of our National Health Service—none of us, ordinary laymen, doctors, nurses or consultants, can say that the Health Service is beyond criticism. It is too important for that. That is why I ask my good friend the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) to see what he can do to break this deadlock. We love and are proud of our Health Service, but sometimes it does not work and that is why, late at night like this, I must keep some of us in the House awake to try to help those who need help.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) on his success in winning this opportunity to debate a matter of some concern to his constituents. He is recognised for his unflagging interest in the welfare of the people of his constituency and I pay particular tribute to him.
These matters undeniably involve clinical judgment and it would not be right for me to pass judgment. However, I am concerned, as is my hon. Friend, about the consequences for the children.
I, like perhaps many other hon. Members, had my tonsils out when I was 10 in my local, excellent National Health Service hospital. It was local, and I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said about the need for young children, in particular, to be close to their families and to avoid, if possible, extensive travel.
Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to talk briefly about waiting lists, especially as they affect ear, nose and throat services.
The Government have been concerned in the past two years to tackle the problem of waiting lists and times for people waiting for treatment under the National Health Service. To this end, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has set aside considerable sums of money—£25 million in 1987–88, £30 million in the year just ended and £31 million in 1989–90—to enable health authorities to attack those areas and specialties where the number of people waiting, and the length of time they have to wait, is a problem. The money provided will enable more than 300,000 extra in-patients and day cases and over 200,000 extra out-patients to be treated by April 1990.
Looking at the picture more broadly, an impressive 6·5 million in-patients in all specialties are now being treated each year in our hospitals. This represents an increase of nearly one quarter over the past 10 years.
How does north Devon fit into this picture of expanding health care? Current expenditure has increased by over 30 per cent. in real terms since 1982–83. The proportion of frontline staff—doctors, nurses and other health professionals—has increased. Numbers of patients treated have risen correspondingly in the same period. The way in which statistics are collected has recently changed but between 1982 and 1986 in-patient cases rose by 26 per cent., out-patients by the same amount and day cases by 29 per cent.
I mention all this because it is important to see how far we have come in a short time, and what great strides have been made in access to health services for the population as a whole and for north Devon in particular. We do not rest on our laurels, however. We drive on. Problems remain, as this debate testifies, and it would be foolish to suppose that we could ever elininate them all, even if they could be anticipated.
There are various reasons for the build-up of waiting lists and times, where these occur at levels which begin to cause concern. They can often be resolved by changes in patient management, and by better informed referrals. In the south-west, general practitioners are sent information on waiting list numbers by specialty throughout the region on a quarterly basis. In other instances, it means specially targeted resources to help ease bottlenecks. Hence the existence of the waiting list fund.
The South Western region has received substantial sums with which to tackle its waiting list problems—£1·65 million in 1987–88, £1·9 million in 1988–89, and £1·55 million for 1989–90. The regional health authority has made £60,000 available to North Devon in 1988–89, and allocated a further £76,000 for the coming year, out of

which, as my hon. Friend said, £49,000 is intended for a project in the ear, nose and throat specialty to tackle that particular problem. The project, which involves contracting with the Nuffield hospital, Plymouth, to take 40 patients and which will last from July to October, will aim to reduce the number of children awaiting removal of tonsils and adenoids. I would draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the fact that the operations on these children would have to be funded by the health authority from either the waiting list initiative or from the authority's allocation.
If the children were not operated on in Plymouth, using the funds available under the waiting list initiative, and if they were looked after in hospital in north Devon, resources would be needed for those operations, so it would not be true to say that we are wasting £49,000 by applying this remedy to the problem.
I wish to comment on one other point that my hon. Friend made. The national and regional policy is that children should be treated in designated children's wards by specially trained staff so as to safeguard both their physical and psychological well-being. I believe that that is an opinion that is generally held, although, I admit, not universally agreed.
My hon. Friend will be aware of some of the background to the rise in the waiting list figures for ear, nose and throat operations in north Devon, about half of which are performed on children. Matters of clinical judgment were involved, which it is not appropriate to go into here, but about which I understand discussions have been taking place between the health authority and the consultant concerned, with independent expert advice. The health authority is optimistic that matters will soon be resolved. I understand that from 10 April Mr. Riddington Young has agreed to operate on children requiring the removal of tonsils and adenoids who are over the age of 10 years. That is recent and good news.
The matter is clearly one for the North Devon health authority to deal with, in consultation with the regional health authority, who hold the consultant's contract of employment. On that point, we have always believed that the level where the contract is held is less important than the actual management of the contract. We would expect the regional and district health authorities to work together in the day-to-day management of consultants and for local managers to deal with problems that arise. As my hon. Friend said, the proposals in the recent White Paper will strengthen those arrangements.
However, even after that recent and welcome news concerning the consultant involved, I appreciate that there may still be a problem to be resolved. I can tell my hon. Friend that I will ask Sir Vernon Seccombe, chairman of the South Western regional health authority, to report to me within one month from today on how the position has developed and on the extent to which it has been resolved. I can give my hon. Friend an assurance, which I hope he will convey to his constituents—especially to the parents of the children involved—that I place great importance on what he has said and that I will write to him at the end of one month.
My hon. Friend raised the altogether separate subject of compensation payments for patients who received radiation overdoses at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital last year. That matter is being handled by the legal advisers of Exeter health authority and the patients concerned or their executors. As my hon. Friend knows,


the health authority has, following an independent inquiry, accepted that it had failed in its duty and it has already paid out interim sums. It is working with its legal advisers to effect satisfactory final settlements as quickly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to One o'clock.